The interaction-based hazard index (HIINT), a mixtures approach to characterizing toxicologic interactions, is demonstrated and evaluated by statistically analyzing data on four regulated trihalomethanes (THMs). These THMs were the subject of a multipurpose toxicology study specifically designed to evaluate the HIINT formula. This HIINT evaluation uses single, binary and quaternary mixture THM data. While this research is considered preliminary, the results provide insights on the application of HIINT when toxicology mixture data are available and on improvements to the method. The results for relative liver weight show the HIINT was generally not conservative but did adjust the additive hazard index (HI) in the correct direction, predicting greater than dose-additivity, as seen in the mixture data. For the liver serum enzyme endpoint alanine aminotransferase, the results were mixed, with some indices giving an estimated effective dose lower than the observed mixture effective dose and others higher; in general, the HIINT adjusted the HI in the correct direction, predicting less than dose-additivity. In addition, a methodological improvement was made in the calculation of maximum interaction magnitude. Suggested refinements to the HIINT included mixture-specific replacements for default parameter values and approaches for supplementing the usual qualitative discussions of uncertainty with numerical descriptions.

The field of chemical toxicity testing is undergoing a transition to overcome the limitations of in vivo experiments. This evolution involves implementing innovative non-animal approaches to improve predictability and provide a more precise understanding of toxicity mechanisms. Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) networks are pivotal in organizing existing mechanistic knowledge related to toxicological processes. However, these AOP networks are dynamic and require regular updates to incorporate the latest data. Regulatory challenges also persist due to concerns about the reliability of the information they offer. This study introduces a generic Weight-of-Evidence (WoE) scoring method, aligned with the tailored Bradford-Hill criteria, to quantitatively assess the confidence levels in key event relationships (KERs) within AOP networks. We use the previously published AOP network on chemical-induced liver steatosis, a prevalent form of human liver injury, as a case study. Initially, the existing AOP network is optimized with the latest scientific information extracted from PubMed using the free SysRev platform for artificial intelligence (AI)-based abstract inclusion and standardized data collection. The resulting optimized AOP network, constructed using Cytoscape, visually represents confidence levels through node size (key event, KE) and edge thickness (KERs). Additionally, a Shiny application is developed to facilitate user interaction with the dataset, promoting future updates. Our analysis of 173 research papers yielded 100 unique KEs and 221 KERs among which 72 KEs and 170 KERs, respectively, have not been previously documented in the prior AOP network or AOP-wiki. Notably, modifications in de novo lipogenesis, fatty acid uptake and mitochondrial beta-oxidation, leading to lipid accumulation and liver steatosis, garnered the highest KER confidence scores. In conclusion, our study delivers a generic methodology for developing and assessing AOP networks. The quantitative WoE scoring method facilitates in determining the level of support for KERs within the optimized AOP network, offering valuable insights into its utility in both scientific research and regulatory contexts. KERs supported by robust evidence represent promising candidates for inclusion in an in vitro test battery for reliably predicting chemical-induced liver steatosis within regulatory frameworks.

New sources of proteins are essential to meet the demands of the growing world population and evolving food trends. Assessing the allergenicity of proteins in novel food (NF) poses a significant food safety regulatory challenge. The Codex Alimentarius Commission presented an allergenicity assessment protocol for genetically modified (GM) foods, which can also be adapted for NF. Since no single laboratory test can adequately predict the allergenic potential of NF, the protocol follows a weight-of-evidence approach, evaluated by experts, as part of a risk management process. Regulatory bodies worldwide have adopted this safety protocol, which, among other things, promotes global harmonization. This review unravels the reliability and various motivations, terms, concepts, and approaches of allergenicity assessments, aiming to enhance understanding among manufacturers and the public. Health Canada, Food Safety Commission JAPAN, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand were surveyed, focusing on the European Food Safety Authority and the US Food Safety Administration for examples of scientific opinions regarding allergenicity assessments for novel and GM foods, from 2019 to 2023. According to our findings, current regulatory allergenicity assessments for NF approval primarily rely on literature reviews. Only a few of the NF assessments proactively presented additional tests. We recommend conducting bioinformatic analyses on NF when a panel of experts deems that there is insufficient prior scientific research.

ISO 10993-1:2018 describes evaluating the biocompatibility profile of a medical device from a risk-based approach. This standard details the battery of information that should be considered within the assessment of a device, including raw material composition data, manufacturing processes, and endpoint testing. The ISO 10993/18562 series requires worst-case assumptions and exposure scenarios to be used in the evaluation, which may result in an over-estimation of patient safety risk. Currently, biocompatibility assessments evaluate each data set independently, and the consequence of this individualized assessment of exaggerated inputs is potential false alarms regarding patient safety. To evaluate these safety concerns, the ISO standards indicate that professional judgement should be used to estimate patient risk but does not provide guidance on incorporating a holistic review of the data into the risk assessment. Recalibrating these worst-case data to evaluate them in a weight-of-evidence (WoE) approach may provide a more realistic data set to determine actual patient risk. This proposed WoE framework combines understanding data applicability with a method for gauging the strength of data that can provide additional support for the final safety conclusion. Using a WoE framework will allow risk assessors to contextualize the data and utilize it to comprehensively estimate patient safety.

The present paper identifies a critical factor that leads to false negative results (i.e., failing to indicate efficacy when beneficial results did occur) in randomized human drug trials. The paper demonstrates that human performance can only be enhanced by a maximum of 30-60% as described by the hormetic dose response which defines the limits of biological plasticity. However, human epidemiological/clinical trials typically contain such extensive variability that often requires responses greater than 2-3 times control group responses to show statistical significance. Thus, many potentially beneficial agents may be missed because the clinical trial fails to recognize and take into consideration the limits of biological plasticity. The paper proposes that this hormesis-biological plasticity-clinical trial conundrum can be addressed successfully via the use of a weight-of-evidence methodology similar to that used by regulatory agencies such as EPA in environmental assessment of chemical toxicity.

How can and should epidemiologists and risk assessors assemble and present evidence for causation of mortality or morbidities by identified agents such as fine particulate matter or other air pollutants? As a motivating example, some scientists have warned recently that ammonia from the production of meat significantly increases human mortality rates in exposed populations by increasing the ambient concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in air. We reexamine the support for such conclusions, including quantitative calculations that attribute deaths to PM2.5 air pollution by applying associational results such as relative risks, odds ratios, or slope coefficients from regression models to predict the effects on mortality or morbidity of reducing PM2.5 exposures. Taking an outside perspective from the field of causal artificial intelligence (CAI), we conclude that these attribution calculations are methodologically unsound. They produce unreliable conclusions because they ignore an essential distinction between differences in outcomes observed at different levels of exposure and changes in outcomes caused by changing exposure. We find that multiple studies that have examined associations between changes over time in particulate exposure and mortality risk instead of differences in exposures and corresponding mortality risks have found no clear evidence that observed changes in exposure help to predict or explain subsequent changes in mortality risks. We conclude that there is no sound theoretical or empirical reason to believe that reducing ammonia emissions from farms has reduced or would reduce human mortality risks. More generally, applying CAI principles and methods can potentially improve current widespread practices of unsound causal inferences and policy-relevant causal claims that are made without the benefit of formal causal analysis in air pollution health effects research and in other areas of applied epidemiology and public health risk assessment.

Watersheds are subjected to diverse anthropogenic inputs, exposing aquatic biota to a wide range of chemicals. Detection of multiple, different chemicals can challenge natural resource managers who often have to determine where to allocate potentially limited resources. Here, we describe a weight-of-evidence framework for retrospectively prioritizing aquatic contaminants. To demonstrate framework utility, we used data from 96-h caged fish studies to prioritize chemicals detected in the Milwaukee Estuary (WI, USA; 2017-2018). Across study years, 77/178 targeted chemicals were detected. Chemicals were assigned prioritization scores based on spatial and temporal detection frequency, environmental distribution, environmental fate, ecotoxicological potential, and effect prediction. Chemicals were sorted into priority bins based on the intersection of prioritization score and data availability. Data-limited chemicals represented those that did not have sufficient data to adequately evaluate ecotoxicological potential or environmental fate. Seven compounds (fluoranthene, benzo[a]pyrene, pyrene, atrazine, metolachlor, phenanthrene, and DEET) were identified as high or medium priority and data sufficient and flagged as candidates for further effects-based monitoring studies. Twenty-one compounds were identified as high or medium priority and data limited and flagged as candidates for further ecotoxicological research. Fifteen chemicals were flagged as the lowest priority in the watershed. One of these chemicals (2-methylnaphthalene) displayed no data limitations and was flagged as a definitively low-priority chemical. The remaining chemicals displayed some data limitations and were considered lower-priority compounds (contingent on further ecotoxicological and environmental fate assessments). The remaining 34 compounds were flagged as low or medium priority. Altogether, this prioritization provided a screening-level (non-definitive) assessment that could be used to focus further resource management and risk assessment activities in the Milwaukee Estuary. Furthermore, by providing detailed methodology and a practical example with real experimental data, we demonstrated that the proposed framework represents a transparent and adaptable approach for prioritizing contaminants in freshwater environments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:1276-1296. © 2022 SETAC.

To overcome the multifactorial complexity associated with the analysis and interpretation of the capillary electrophoresis results of forensic mixture samples, probabilistic genotyping methods have been developed and implemented as software, based on either qualitative or quantitative models. The former considers the electropherograms\' qualitative information (detected alleles), whilst the latter also takes into account the associated quantitative information (height of allele peaks). Both models then quantify the genetic evidence through the computation of a likelihood ratio (LR), comparing the probabilities of the observations given two alternative and mutually exclusive hypotheses. In this study, the results obtained through the qualitative software LRmix Studio (v.2.1.3), and the quantitative ones: STRmix™ (v.2.7) and EuroForMix (v.3.4.0), were compared considering real casework samples. A set of 156 irreversibly anonymized sample pairs (GeneMapper files), obtained under the scope of former cases of the Portuguese Scientific Police Laboratory, Judiciary Police (LPC-PJ), were independently analyzed using each software. Sample pairs were composed by (i) a mixture profile with either two or three estimated contributors, and (ii) a single contributor profile associated. In most cases, information on 21 short tandem repeat (STR) autosomal markers were considered, and the majority of the single-source samples could not be a priori excluded as belonging to a contributor to the paired mixture sample. This inter-software analysis shows the differences between the probative values obtained through different qualitative and quantitative tools, for the same input samples. LR values computed in this work by quantitative tools showed to be generally higher than those obtained by the qualitative. Although the differences between the LR values computed by both quantitative software showed to be much smaller, STRmix™ generated LRs are generally higher than those from EuroForMix. As expected, mixtures with three estimated contributors showed generally lower LR values than those obtained for mixtures with two estimated contributors. Different software products are based on different approaches and mathematical or statistical models, which necessarily result in the computation of different LR values. The understanding by the forensic experts of the models and their differences among available software is therefore crucial. The better the expert understands the methodology, the better he/she will be able to support and/or explain the results in court or any other area of scrutiny.

Industrial needs and regulatory requirements have played a significant role in accelerating the use of nontesting methods including in silico tools as alternatives to animal testing. The main interest is not solely on the use of in silico tools, or in read-across, but on better toxicological safety assessment of substances, and for this purpose more advanced, integrated strategies have to be implemented. VEGAHUB wants to promote this broader view, not necessarily focused on a specific approach. Applying multiple tools and complementary approaches instead of one technique may provide more elements for a more robust evaluation, but at the same time it is important to have a conceptual scheme to integrate multiple, heterogeneous lines of evidence. We will show how the user can benefit from the diversity of tools available within the platform VEGAHUB for assessing the biological properties of chemical substances on an example of (non)mutagenicity.

Despite the evolution over the last half century of regulatory programs and frameworks developed for the evaluation of safety and management of risks associated with chemicals and materials, new and emerging contaminant issues continue to be identified. These recurring issues suggest a need for review and reflection on current approaches and strategies for ensuring the safety of chemicals and materials. Twelve existing frameworks relating to the evaluation and management of chemical or material risk were reviewed to identify potential process improvements for facilitating early identification of potentially problematic substances and better inform risk management strategies (e.g., prohibition, restricted use, or selection of safer alternatives). The frameworks were selected to represent a broad spectrum of regional, national, and international authorities and purposes, including preproduction evaluation of new substances, classification and hazard communication, identification of persistent pollutants, and identification of safer alternatives. Elements common to the frameworks were identified, as well as features unique to select frameworks. A comparative evaluation was performed, and potential new strategies and approaches were identified to inform process improvement recommendations. These recommendations include requiring validated analytical procedures to enable measurement in environmental media, improved data transparency and accessibility, flexibility to incorporate advances into the state of the practice (e.g., new approach methodologies and high-throughput assessment tools), and incorporation of monitoring and adaptive management strategies to enable more timely intervention. Process improvement recommendations are discussed and summarized in a conceptual risk management framework. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:1192-1206. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.