ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2022
A Case Study on Integrating a New Key Event Into an Existing Adverse Outcome Pathway on Oxidative DNA Damage: Challenges and Approaches in a Data-Rich Area.
Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- AOP key event relationship report: Linking androgen receptor antagonism with nipple retention.Current research in toxicology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) synthesize toxicological information to convey and weigh evidence in an accessible format. AOPs are constructed in modules that include key events (KEs) and key event relationships (KERs). This modular structure facilitates AOP expansion and network development. AOP development requires finding relevant information to evaluate the weight of evidence supporting each KER. To do this, the use of transparent/reproducible search methods, such as systematic review (SR), have been proposed. Applying SR to AOP development in a data-rich area is difficult as SR requires screening each article returned from a search. Here we describe a case study to integrate a single new KE into an existing AOP. We explored the use of SR concepts and software to conduct a transparent and documented literature search to identify empirical data supporting the incorporation of a new KE, increase in cellular reactive oxygen species (ROS), upstream of an existing AOP: "Oxidative DNA Damage Leading to Chromosomal Aberrations and Mutations". Connecting this KE to the AOP is supported by the development of five new KERs, the most important being the first adjacent KER (increase in ROS leading to oxidative DNA damage). We initially searched for evidence of all five KERs and screened 100 papers to develop a preliminary evidence map. After removing papers not containing relevant data based on our Population, Exposure, Comparator and Outcome statement, 39 articles supported one or more KERs; these primarily addressed temporal or dose concordance of the non-adjacent KERs with limited evidence supporting the first adjacent KER. We thus conducted a second focused set of searches using search terms for specific methodologies to measure these first two KEs. After screening, 12 articles were identified that contained quantitative evidence supporting the first adjacent KER. Given that integrating a new KE into an existing AOP requires the development of multiple KERs, this approach of building a preliminary evidence map, focusing evidence gathering on the first adjacent KER, and applying reproducible search strategies using specific methodologies for the first adjacent KER, enabled us to prioritize studies to support expansion of this data-rich AOP.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.