From "weight of evidence" to quantitative data integration using multicriteria decision analysis and bayesian methods

Altex

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2015, Pages 3-8

  Linkov, Igor ^a   Massey, Olivia ^a,b   Keisler, Jeff ^c   Rusyn, Ivan ^d   Hartung, Thomas ^e,f  

^a US Army Engineer Research and Development Center   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

^d TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^e JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bayesian; Decision analysis; Policy; Toxicology; Weight of evidence

Indexed keywords

FORMALDEHYDE; METHANOL; NANOMATERIAL;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; HEALTH HAZARD; RISK ASSESSMENT; TAXONOMY; DECISION SUPPORT SYSTEM; GOVERNMENT; HUMAN; PROCEDURES; UNITED STATES;

BAYES THEOREM; DECISION SUPPORT TECHNIQUES; ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH; HUMANS; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

EID: 84921341268     PISSN: 1868596X     EISSN: 18688551     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.14573/altex.1412231     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. Balls, M., Amcoff, P., Bremer, S. et al. (2006). The principles of weight of evidence validation of test methods and testing strategies. Altern Lab Anim 34, 603-620.
2. Buist, H., Aldenberg, T., Batke, M. et al. (2013). The OSIRIS Weight of Evidence approach: ITS mutagenicity and ITS carcinogenicity. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67, 170-181. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.01.002
3. Good, I. J. (1960). Weight of evidence, corroboration, explanatory power, information and the utility of experiments. J R Stat Soc 22, 319-331.
4. Good, I. J. (1984). The best explicatum for weight of evidence. J Stat Comput Simul 19, 294-299. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/00949658408810739
5. Good, I. J. (1985). Weight of evidence: A brief survey. Bayesian Stat 2, 249-270.
6. Good, I. J. (1989). On the combination of pieces of evidence. J Stat Comput Simul 31, 54-58. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/00949658908811114
7. Hartung, T. (2009). Food for thought... on evidence-based toxicology. ALTEX 26, 75-82.
8. Hartung, T., Luechtefeld, T., Maertens, A. and Kleensang, A. (2013a). Integrated testing strategies for safety assessments. ALTEX 30, 3-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.14573/altex.2013.1.003
9. Hartung, T., Stephens, M. and Hoffmann, S. (2013b). Mechanistic validation. ALTEX 30, 119-130. http://dx.doi.org/10.14573/ altex.2013.2.119
10. HERA - Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (2002). Proceedings of the 2001 Society for Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) workshop on Weight of Evidence. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 8 (7).
11. Hess, J. J., Eidson, M., Tlumak, J. E. et al. (2014). An evidencebased public health approach to climate change adaptation. Environ Health Perspect 122, 1177-1186. http://dx.doi. org/10.1289/ehp.1307396.
12. Hoffmann, S. and Hartung, T. (2006). Towards an evidencebased toxicology. Human Exp Toxicol 25, 497-513. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1191/0960327106het648oa
13. Hoffmann, S., Stephens, M. and Hartung, T. (2014). Evidencebased toxicology. In P. Wexler (ed.), Encyclopedia of Toxicology. Vol. 2, 3rd edition (565-567). Elsevier Inc., Academic Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-386454-3.01060-5
14. Hristozov, D. R., Zabeo, A., Foran, C. et al. (2014). A weight of evidence approach for hazard screening of engineered nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 8, 72-87. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2012.750695
15. Jaworska, J., and Hoffmann, S. (2010). Integrated testing strategy (ITS) - opportunities to better use existing data and guide future testing in toxicology. ALTEX 27, 231-242. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.02.003
16. Jaworska, J., Gabbert, S. and Aldenberg, T. (2010). Towards optimization of chemical testing under REACH: A Bayesian network approach to integrated testing strategies. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 57, 157-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. yrtph.2010.02.003
17. Jaworska, J., Harol, A., Kern, P. S. and Gerberick, F. G. (2011). Integrating non-animal test information into an adaptive testing strategy - skin sensitization proof of concept case. ALTEX 28, 211-225. http://dx.doi.org/10.14573/altex.2011.3.211
18. Linkov, I., Loney, D., Cormier, S. et al. (2009). Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: Review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci Total Environ 407, 5199-5205. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.05.004
19. Linkov, I., Welle, P., Loney, D. et al. (2011). Use of multicriteria decision analysis to support weight of evidence evaluation. Risk Analysis 31, 1211-1225. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.1539-6924.2011.01585.x
20. McClung, D. M. (2011). The strength and weight of evidence in backcountry avalanche forecasting. Natural Hazards 59, 1635-1645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11069-011-9856-y
21. NRC - National Research Council (2014a). Review of EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.
22. NRC (2014b). A Framework to Guide Selection of Chemical Alternatives. Washington, DC, USA: National Academies Press.
23. OECD (2014). How to use the Toolbox AOP workflow for Skin Sensitization. http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/risk-assessment/Tutorial-1-How%20to%20use%20AOP%20for%20Skin%20sensitization-F-28012014.pdf>
24. Patlewicz, G., Ball, N., Becker, R. A. et al. (2014). Read-across approaches - misconceptions, promises and challenges ahead. ALTEX 31, 387-396.
25. Reif, D. M., Sypa, M., Lock, E. F. et al. (2013). ToxPi GUI: An interactive visualization tool for transparent integration of data from diverse sources of evidence. Bioinformatics 29, 402-403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bts686
26. Rooney, A. A., Boyles, A. L., Wolfe, M. S. et al. (2014). Systematic review and evidence integration for literature based environmental health science assessments. Environ Health Perspect 122, 711-718.
27. Rorije, E., Aldenberg, T., Buist, H. et al. (2013). The OSIRIS weight of evidence approach: ITS for skin sensitization. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 67, 146-156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2013.06.003
28. Small, M. J. (2008). Methods for assessing uncertainty in fundamental assumptions and associated models for cancer risk assessment. Risk Analysis 28, 1289-1307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01134.x
29. Smith, E. P., Lipkovich, I. and Ye, K. (2002). Weight-ofevidence (WoE): Quantitative estimation of probability of impairment for individual and multiple lines of evidence. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8, 1585-1596. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/20028091057493
30. Stephens, M. L., Andersen, M., Becker, R. A. et al. (2013). Evidence-based toxicology for the 21st century: Opportunities and challenges. ALTEX 30, 74-104. http://dx.doi.org/10.14573/altex.2013.1.074
31. Sujatha, E. R., Kumaravel, P. and Rajamanickam, G. V. (2014). Assessing landslide susceptibility using Bayesian probabili-ty-based weight of evidence model. B Eng Geol Environ 73, 147-161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10064-013-0537-9
32. Weed, D. (2005). Weight of evidence: A review of concept and methods. Risk Analysis 25, 1545-1557. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2005.00699.x
33. Winkler, R. L. and Clemen, R. T. (2004). Multiple experts vs. multiple methods: Combining correlation assessments. Decision Analysis 1, 167-176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1287/deca.1030.0008
34. Zuin, S., Micheletti, C., Critto, A. et al. (2011). Weight of evidence approach for the relative hazard ranking of nanomaterials. Nanotoxicology 5, 445-458. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/17435390.2010.512986