4.4 Article

Investigating the state of physiologically based kinetic modelling practices and challenges associated with gaining regulatory acceptance of model applications

期刊

REGULATORY TOXICOLOGY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 104-115

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2017.08.019

关键词

PBK models; Physiologically based kinetic models; Regulatory; Toxicology; Risk assessment; Alternatives methods

资金

  1. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education Research Participation Program at US EPA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models are used widely throughout a number of working sectors, including academia and industry, to provide insight into the dosimetry related to observed adverse health effects in humans and other species. Use of these models has increased over the last several decades, especially in conjunction with emerging alternative methods to animal testing, such as in vitro studies and data-driven in silico quantitative-structure-activity-relationship (QSAR) predictions. Experimental information derived from these new approach methods can be used as input for model parameters and allows for increased confidence in models for chemicals that did not have in vivo data for model calibration. Despite significant advancements in good modelling practice (GMP) for model development and evaluation, there remains some reluctance among regulatory agencies to use such models during the risk assessment process. Here, the results of a survey disseminated to the modelling community are presented in order to inform the frequency of use and applications of PBK models in science and regulatory submission. Additionally, the survey was designed to identify a network of investigators involved in PBK modelling and knowledgeable of GMP so that they might be contacted in the future for peer review of PBK models, especially in regards to vetting the models to such a degree as to gain a greater acceptance for regulatory purposes. (C) 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

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