Literature DB >> 25413849

Integrated Testing Strategies (ITS) for safety assessment.

Costanza Rovida1, Nathalie Alépée, Anne M Api, David A Basketter, Frédéric Y Bois, Francesca Caloni, Emanuela Corsini, Mardas Daneshian, Chantra Eskes, Janine Ezendam, Horst Fuchs, Patrick Hayden, Christa Hegele-Hartung, Sebastian Hoffmann, Bruno Hubesch, Miriam N Jacobs, Joanna Jaworska, André Kleensang, Nicole Kleinstreuer, Jon Lalko, Robert Landsiedel, Frédéric Lebreux, Thomas Luechtefeld, Monica Locatelli, Annette Mehling, Andreas Natsch, Jonathan W Pitchford, Donald Prater, Pilar Prieto, Andreas Schepky, Gerrit Schüürmann, Lena Smirnova, Colleen Toole, Erwin van Vliet, Dirk Weisensee, Thomas Hartung.   

Abstract

Integrated testing strategies (ITS), as opposed to single definitive tests or fixed batteries of tests, are expected to efficiently combine different information sources in a quantifiable fashion to satisfy an information need, in this case for regulatory safety assessments. With increasing awareness of the limitations of each individual tool and the development of highly targeted tests and predictions, the need for combining pieces of evidence increases. The discussions that took place during this workshop, which brought together a group of experts coming from different related areas, illustrate the current state of the art of ITS, as well as promising developments and identifiable challenges. The case of skin sensitization was taken as an example to understand how possible ITS can be constructed, optimized and validated. This will require embracing and developing new concepts such as adverse outcome pathways (AOP), advanced statistical learning algorithms and machine learning, mechanistic validation and "Good ITS Practices".

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25413849     DOI: 10.14573/altex.1411011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  ALTEX        ISSN: 1868-596X            Impact factor:   6.043


  39 in total

1.  Probabilistic hazard assessment for skin sensitization potency by dose-response modeling using feature elimination instead of quantitative structure-activity relationships.

Authors:  Thomas Luechtefeld; Alexandra Maertens; James M McKim; Thomas Hartung; Andre Kleensang; Vanessa Sá-Rocha
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 3.446

Review 2.  From the exposome to mechanistic understanding of chemical-induced adverse effects.

Authors:  Beate I Escher; Jörg Hackermüller; Tobias Polte; Stefan Scholz; Achim Aigner; Rolf Altenburger; Alexander Böhme; Stephanie K Bopp; Werner Brack; Wibke Busch; Marc Chadeau-Hyam; Adrian Covaci; Adolf Eisenträger; James J Galligan; Natalia Garcia-Reyero; Thomas Hartung; Michaela Hein; Gunda Herberth; Annika Jahnke; Jos Kleinjans; Nils Klüver; Martin Krauss; Marja Lamoree; Irina Lehmann; Till Luckenbach; Gary W Miller; Andrea Müller; David H Phillips; Thorsten Reemtsma; Ulrike Rolle-Kampczyk; Gerrit Schüürmann; Benno Schwikowski; Yu-Mei Tan; Saskia Trump; Susanne Walter-Rohde; John F Wambaugh
Journal:  Environ Int       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 9.621

Review 3.  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

4.  Prediction of skin sensitization potency using machine learning approaches.

Authors:  Qingda Zang; Michael Paris; David M Lehmann; Shannon Bell; Nicole Kleinstreuer; David Allen; Joanna Matheson; Abigail Jacobs; Warren Casey; Judy Strickland
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2017-01-10       Impact factor: 3.446

Review 5.  Biology-inspired microphysiological system approaches to solve the prediction dilemma of substance testing.

Authors:  Uwe Marx; Tommy B Andersson; Anthony Bahinski; Mario Beilmann; Sonja Beken; Flemming R Cassee; Murat Cirit; Mardas Daneshian; Susan Fitzpatrick; Olivier Frey; Claudia Gaertner; Christoph Giese; Linda Griffith; Thomas Hartung; Minne B Heringa; Julia Hoeng; Wim H de Jong; Hajime Kojima; Jochen Kuehnl; Marcel Leist; Andreas Luch; Ilka Maschmeyer; Dmitry Sakharov; Adrienne J A M Sips; Thomas Steger-Hartmann; Danilo A Tagle; Alexander Tonevitsky; Tewes Tralau; Sergej Tsyb; Anja van de Stolpe; Rob Vandebriel; Paul Vulto; Jufeng Wang; Joachim Wiest; Marleen Rodenburg; Adrian Roth
Journal:  ALTEX       Date:  2016-05-15       Impact factor: 6.043

6.  Variability in in vivo studies: Defining the upper limit of performance for predictions of systemic effect levels.

Authors:  Ly Ly Pham; Sean Watford; Prachi Pradeep; Matthew T Martin; Russell Thomas; Richard Judson; R Woodrow Setzer; Katie Paul Friedman
Journal:  Comput Toxicol       Date:  2020-08-01

7.  Integrated decision strategies for skin sensitization hazard.

Authors:  Judy Strickland; Qingda Zang; Nicole Kleinstreuer; Michael Paris; David M Lehmann; Neepa Choksi; Joanna Matheson; Abigail Jacobs; Anna Lowit; David Allen; Warren Casey
Journal:  J Appl Toxicol       Date:  2016-02-06       Impact factor: 3.446

8.  Immunotoxicology: A brief history, current status and strategies for future immunotoxicity assessment.

Authors:  Dori Germolec; Robert Luebke; Andrew Rooney; Kelly Shipkowski; Rob Vandebriel; Henk van Loveren
Journal:  Curr Opin Toxicol       Date:  2017-08

Review 9.  Skin sensitization testing needs and data uses by US regulatory and research agencies.

Authors:  Judy Strickland; Amber B Daniel; David Allen; Cecilia Aguila; Surender Ahir; Simona Bancos; Evisabel Craig; Dori Germolec; Chandramallika Ghosh; Naomi L Hudson; Abigail Jacobs; David M Lehmann; Joanna Matheson; Emily N Reinke; Nakissa Sadrieh; Stanislav Vukmanovic; Nicole Kleinstreuer
Journal:  Arch Toxicol       Date:  2018-10-30       Impact factor: 5.153

10.  Progress on Reconstructed Human Skin Models for Allergy Research and Identifying Contact Sensitizers.

Authors:  Charlotte Rodrigues Neves; Susan Gibbs
Journal:  Curr Top Microbiol Immunol       Date:  2021       Impact factor: 4.291

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.