Literature DB >> 15656771

A modular approach to the ECVAM principles on test validity.

Thomas Hartung1, Susanne Bremer, Silvia Casati, Sandra Coecke, Raffaella Corvi, Salvador Fortaner, Laura Gribaldo, Marlies Halder, Sebastian Hoffmann, Annett Janusch Roi, Pilar Prieto, Enrico Sabbioni, Laurie Scott, Andrew Worth, Valérie Zuang.   

Abstract

The European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM) proposes to make the validation process more flexible, while maintaining its high standards. The various aspects of validation are broken down into independent modules, and the information necessary to complete each module is defined. The data required to assess test validity in an independent peer review, not the process, are thus emphasised. Once the information to satisfy all the modules is complete, the test can enter the peer-review process. In this way, the between-laboratory variability and predictive capacity of a test can be assessed independently. Thinking in terms of validity principles will broaden the applicability of the validation process to a variety of tests and procedures, including the generation of new tests, new technologies (for example, genomics, proteomics), computer-based models (for example, quantitative structure-activity relationship models), and expert systems. This proposal also aims to take into account existing information, defining this as retrospective validation, in contrast to a prospective validation study, which has been the predominant approach to date. This will permit the assessment of test validity by completing the missing information via the relevant validation procedure: prospective validation, retrospective validation, catch-up validation, or a combination of these procedures.

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15656771     DOI: 10.1177/026119290403200503

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Altern Lab Anim        ISSN: 0261-1929            Impact factor:   1.303


  43 in total

Review 1.  Developmental neurotoxicity - challenges in the 21st century and in vitro opportunities.

Authors:  Lena Smirnova; Helena T Hogberg; Marcel Leist; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 6.043

2.  The principles of weight of evidence validation of test methods and testing strategies. The report and recommendations of ECVAM workshop 58.

Authors:  Michael Balls; Patric Amcoff; Susanne Bremer; Silvia Casati; Sandra Coecke; Richard Clothier; Robert Combes; Raffaella Corvi; Rodger Curren; Chantra Eskes; Julia Fentem; Laura Gribaldo; Marlies Halder; Thomas Hartung; Sebastian Hoffmann; Leonard Schectman; Laurie Scott; Horst Spielmann; William Stokes; Raymond Tice; Drew Wagner; Valérie Zuang
Journal:  Altern Lab Anim       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 1.303

3.  QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to?

Authors:  Artem Cherkasov; Eugene N Muratov; Denis Fourches; Alexandre Varnek; Igor I Baskin; Mark Cronin; John Dearden; Paola Gramatica; Yvonne C Martin; Roberto Todeschini; Viviana Consonni; Victor E Kuz'min; Richard Cramer; Romualdo Benigni; Chihae Yang; James Rathman; Lothar Terfloth; Johann Gasteiger; Ann Richard; Alexander Tropsha
Journal:  J Med Chem       Date:  2014-01-06       Impact factor: 7.446

Review 4.  Big-data and machine learning to revamp computational toxicology and its use in risk assessment.

Authors:  Thomas Luechtefeld; Craig Rowlands; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  Toxicol Res (Camb)       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 3.524

5.  21st Century Cell Culture for 21st Century Toxicology.

Authors:  David Pamies; Thomas Hartung
Journal:  Chem Res Toxicol       Date:  2016-12-05       Impact factor: 3.739

6.  Shallow Representation Learning via Kernel PCA Improves QSAR Modelability.

Authors:  Stefano E Rensi; Russ B Altman
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2017-08-07       Impact factor: 4.956

7.  Perspectives on validation of high-throughput assays supporting 21st century toxicity testing.

Authors:  Richard Judson; Robert Kavlock; Matthew Martin; David Reif; Keith Houck; Thomas Knudsen; Ann Richard; Raymond R Tice; Maurice Whelan; Menghang Xia; Ruili Huang; Christopher Austin; George Daston; Thomas Hartung; John R Fowle; William Wooge; Weida Tong; David Dix
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 6.043

8.  Integrated testing strategies for safety assessments.

Authors:  Thomas Hartung; Tom Luechtefeld; Alexandra Maertens; Andre Kleensang
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 6.043

Review 9.  Validating and troubleshooting ocular in vitro toxicology tests.

Authors:  Frank A Barile
Journal:  J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 1.950

10.  Integrating omic technologies into aquatic ecological risk assessment and environmental monitoring: hurdles, achievements, and future outlook.

Authors:  Graham Van Aggelen; Gerald T Ankley; William S Baldwin; Daniel W Bearden; William H Benson; J Kevin Chipman; Tim W Collette; John A Craft; Nancy D Denslow; Michael R Embry; Francesco Falciani; Stephen G George; Caren C Helbing; Paul F Hoekstra; Taisen Iguchi; Yoshi Kagami; Ioanna Katsiadaki; Peter Kille; Li Liu; Peter G Lord; Terry McIntyre; Anne O'Neill; Heather Osachoff; Ed J Perkins; Eduarda M Santos; Rachel C Skirrow; Jason R Snape; Charles R Tyler; Don Versteeg; Mark R Viant; David C Volz; Tim D Williams; Lorraine Yu
Journal:  Environ Health Perspect       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 9.031

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.