4.4 Article

Towards optimization of chemical testing under REACH: A Bayesian network approach to Integrated Testing Strategies

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 57, 期 2-3, 页码 157-167

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2010.02.003

关键词

Integrated Testing Strategies; Conceptual requirements for ITS development; Bayesian inference; Bayesian networks; Quantitative Weight-of-Evidence

资金

  1. European Union [GOCE-037017-OSIRIS]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Integrated Testing Strategies (ITSs) are considered tools for guiding resource efficient decision-making on chemical hazard and risk management. Originating in the mid-nineties from research initiatives on minimizing animal use in toxicity testing, ITS development still lacks a methodologically consistent framework for incorporating all relevant information, for updating and reducing uncertainty across testing stages, and for handling conditionally dependent evidence. This paper presents a conceptual and methodological proposal for improving ITS development. We discuss methodological shortcomings of current ITS approaches, and we identify conceptual requirements for ITS development and optimization. First, ITS development should be based on probabilistic methods in order to quantify and update various uncertainties across testing stages. Second, reasoning should reflect a set of logic rules for consistently combining probabilities of related events. Third, inference should be hypothesis-driven and should reflect causal relationships in order to coherently guide decision-making across testing stages. To meet these requirements, we propose an information-theoretic approach to ITS development, the ITS inference framework, which can be made operational by using Bayesian networks. As an illustration, we examine a simple two-test battery for assessing rodent carcinogenicity. Finally, we demonstrate how running the Bayesian network reveals a quantitative measure of Weight-of-Evidence. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据