29 research outputs found
Application of evidence-based methods to construct mechanism-driven chemical assessment frameworks
The workshop titled âApplication of evidence-based methods to construct mechanism-driven chemical assessment frameworksâ was co-organized by the Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and hosted by EFSA at its headquarters in Parma, Italy on October 2 and 3, 2019. The goal was to explore integration of systematic review with mechanistic evidence evaluation. Participants were invited to work on concrete products to advance the exploration of how evidence-based approaches can support the development and application of adverse outcome pathways (AOP) in chemical risk assessment. The workshop discussions were centered around three related themes: 1) assessing certainty in AOPs, 2) literature-based AOP development, and 3) integrating certainty in AOPs and non-animal evidence into decision frameworks. Several challenges, mostly related to methodology, were identified and largely determined the workshop recommendations. The workshop recommendations included the comparison and potential alignment of processes used to develop AOP and systematic review methodology, including the translation of vocabulary of evidence-based methods to AOP and vice versa, the development and improvement of evidence mapping and text mining methods and tools, as well as a call for a fundamental change in chemical risk and uncertainty assessment methodology if to be conducted based on AOPs and new approach methodologies (NAM). The usefulness of evidence-based approaches for mechanism-based chemical risk assessments was stressed, particularly the potential contribution of the rigor and transparency inherent to such approaches in building stakeholdersâ trust for implementation of NAM evidence and AOPs into chemical risk assessment
Applying evidence-based methods to the development and use of adverse outcome pathways
The workshop âApplication of evidence-based methods to construct mechanistic frameworks for the development and use of non-animal toxicity testsâ was organized by the Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration and hosted by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Working Group on June 12, 2019. The purpose of the workshop was to bring together international regulatory bodies, risk assessors, academic scientists, and industry to explore how systematic review methods and the adverse outcome pathway framework could be combined to develop and use mechanistic test methods for predicting the toxicity of chemical substances in an evidence-based manner. The meeting covered the history of biological frameworks, the way adverse outcome pathways are currently developed, the basic principles of systematic methodology, including systematic reviews and evidence maps, and assessment of certainty in models, and adverse outcome pathways in particular. Specific topics were discussed via case studies in small break-out groups. The group concluded that adverse outcome pathways provide an important framework to support mechanism-based assessment in environmental health. The process of their development has a few challenges that could be addressed with systematic methods and automation tools. Addressing these challenges will increase the transparency of the evidence behind adverse outcome pathways and the consistency with which they are defined; this in turn will increase their value for supporting public health decisions. It was suggested to explore the details of applying systematic methods to adverse outcome pathway development in a series of case studies and workshops
A cross sectional study of anemia and iron deficiency as risk factors for arsenic-induced skin lesions in Bangladeshi women
High incidence of hepatitis C virus infection in hemodialysis patients in units with high prevalence
Individual and contextual characteristics of the German extreme right-wing vote in the 1990's: A test of complementary theories
Contains fulltext :
17099.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)In this article we set out to improve our knowledge on voting for extreme right-wing parties, i.e. the Republikaner, by taking into account social, political and contextual characteristics. We test four theories that provide explanations as to why certain social categories are more likely to vote for the Republikaner. The hypotheses are tested with multilevel analyses, with data from a national sample (N = 4688). Multinomial analyses provide additional information on how theoretically derived political attitudes effect voting behaviour