Abstract
Weight of Evidence (WoE) is an assessment mechanism used to systematically consider a collection of scientific data that addresses a specific hypothesis. WoE frameworks are used to help form a reasonable conclusion based on all available information, and are commonly utilized in risk assessment. They have recently been applied to toxicological assessments that seek to understand Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs), or the cascade of physiological events that link toxicant exposure to a downstream adverse health outcome. In case studies, WoE methods have proven useful in assessing AOPs and estimating pathway-based risk. However, WoE approaches vary considerably and have received criticism for their lack of transparency, reproducibility, and quantitative rigor. The subjective nature of qualitative WoE constructs has led to a push for a quantitative methodology that is consistent, objective, and robust. The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief background on WoE methodology and its historical use in AOP discovery, as well as highlight progress in the development of a standardized quantitative WoE framework. An example of a newly proposed standardized quantitative WoE framework for AOPs is discussed, and gaps and suggested improvements are examined in order to identify next steps towards making quantitative WoE methods for AOPs more objective, transparent, and reproducible.
References
Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, Hoff DJ, Hornung MW, Johnson RD, Mount DR, Nichols JW, Russom CL, Schmieder PK (2010) Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem 29(3):730–741
AOP-Wiki (2014) Users’ handbook supplement to the guidance document for developing and assessing AOPs. From https://aopkb.org/common/AOP_Handbook.pdf
Becker RA, Ankley GT, Edwards SW, Kennedy SW, Linkov I, Meek B, Sachana M, Segner H, Van Der Burg B, Villeneuve DL (2015) Increasing scientific confidence in adverse outcome pathways: application of tailored Bradford-Hill considerations for evaluating weight of evidence. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 72(3):514–537
Becker RA, Dellarco V, Seed J, Kronenberg JM, Meek B, Foreman J, Palermo C, Kirman C, Linkov I, Schoeny R, Dourson M (2017) Quantitative weight of evidence to assess confidence in potential modes of action. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 86:205–220
Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco V, McGregor D, Meek ME, Vickers C, Willcocks D, Farland W (2006) IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol 36(10):781–792
Burton GA, Chapman PM, Smith EP (2002) Weight-of-evidence approaches for assessing ecosystem impairment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8(7):1657–1673
Chapman PM, McDonald BG, Lawrence GS (2002) Weight-of-evidence issues and frameworks for sediment quality (and other) assessments. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 8(7):1489–1515
Collier ZA, Gust KA, Gonzalez-Morales B, Gong P, Wilbanks MS, Linkov I, Perkins EJ (2016) A weight of evidence assessment approach for adverse outcome pathways. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 75:46–57
Good IJ (1960) Weight of evidence, corroboration, explanatory power, information and the utility of experiments. J R Stat Soc Series B (Methodol) 22(2):319–331
Good, I. J. (1991). Weight of evidence and the Bayesian likelihood ratio. The use of statistics in forensic science, 85–106.
Gough D (2007) Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Res Pap Educ 22(2):213–228
Hill AB (1965) The environment and disease: association or causation? Proc R Soc Med 58(5):295
Juberg DR, Gehen SC, Coady KK, LeBaron MJ, Kramer VJ, Lu H, Marty MS (2013) Chlorpyrifos: weight of evidence evaluation of potential interaction with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid pathways. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 66(3):249–263
Klimisch H-J, Andreae M, Tillmann U (1997) A systematic approach for evaluating the quality of experimental toxicological and ecotoxicological data. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 25(1):1–5
Krewski D, Acosta D Jr, Andersen M, Anderson H, Bailar JC III, Boekelheide K, Brent R, Charnley G, Cheung VG, Green S Jr (2010) Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. J Toxicol Environ H, Part B 13(2–4):51–138
Linkov I, Satterstrom F, Kiker G, Batchelor C, Bridges T, Ferguson E (2006) From comparative risk assessment to multi-criteria decision analysis and adaptive management: recent developments and applications. Environ Int 32(8):1072–1093
Linkov I, Loney D, Cormier S, Satterstrom FK, Bridges T (2009) Weight-of-evidence evaluation in environmental assessment: review of qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sci Total Environ 407(19):5199–5205
Linkov I, Welle P, Loney D, Tkachuk A, Canis L, Kim J, Bridges T (2011) Use of multicriteria decision analysis to support weight of evidence evaluation. Risk Anal 31(8):1211–1225
Linkov I, Massey O, Keisler J, Rusyn I, Hartung T (2015) From “weight of evidence” to quantitative data integration using multicriteria decision analysis and Bayesian methods. ALTEX 32(1):3
Meek ME, Boobis AR, Crofton KM, Heinemeyer G, Raaij MV, Vickers C (2011) Risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals: a WHO/IPCS framework. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 60(Suppl 1):S1–S14
Meek M, Boobis A, Cote I, Dellarco V, Fotakis G, Munn S, Seed J, Vickers C (2014a) New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis. J Appl Toxicol 34(1):1–18
Meek M, Palermo CM, Bachman AN, North CM, Jeffrey Lewis R (2014b) Mode of action human relevance (species concordance) framework: evolution of the Bradford Hill considerations and comparative analysis of weight of evidence. J Appl Toxicol 34(6):595–606
National Research Council (NRC); Committee to Review the IRIS Process; Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology; Division on Earth and Life Studies (2014) Review of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) process. National Academies Press (US), Washington, DC
OECD (2013). Guidance document on developing and assessing adverse outcome pathways. Series on testing and assessment, No. 184, Vol. ENV/JM/MONO(2013)6. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, Environment Directorate, Paris
OECD (2014) Users’ handbook supplement to the guidance document for developing and assessing AOPs [ENV/JM/MONO(2013)6]. From: https://aopkb.org/common/AOP_Handbook.pdf
OECD (2016) Adverse outcome pathways, molecular screening and toxicogenomics. www.oecd.org/chemicalsafety/testing/adverse-outcome-pathways-molecular-screening-and-toxicogenomics.htm. Accessed 4 Oct 2016
Rosenblum JS, Gilula NB, Lerner RA (1996) On signal sequence polymorphisms and diseases of distribution. Proc Natl Acad Sci 93(9):4471–4473
Schneider K, Schwarz M, Burkholder I, Kopp-Schneider A, Edler L, Kinsner-Ovaskainen A, Hartung T, Hoffmann S (2009) “ToxRTool”, a new tool to assess the reliability of toxicological data. Toxicol Lett 189(2):138–144
US EPA Risk Assessment Forum (2005) Guidelines for Carcinogen risk assessment. EPA/630/P-03/001F. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-09/documents/cancer_guidelines_final_3-25-05.pdf
US EPA Science Policy Council (2003) A summary of general assessment factors for evaluating the quality of scientific and technical information. Science Policy Council, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Villeneuve DL, Crump D, Garcia-Reyero N, Hecker M, Hutchinson TH, LaLone CA, Landesmann B, Lettieri T, Munn S, Nepelska M, Ottinger MA (2014a) Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development I: strategies and principles. Toxicol Sci 142(2):312–320
Villeneuve D, Volz DC, Embry MR, Ankley GT, Belanger SE, Léonard M, Schirmer K, Tanguay R, Truong L, Wehmas L (2014b) Investigating alternatives to the fish early-life stage test: a strategy for discovering and annotating adverse outcome pathways for early fish development. Environ Toxicol Chem 33(1):158–169
Vinken M, Landesmann B, Goumenou M, Vinken S, Shah I, Jaeschke H, Willett C, Whelan M, Rogiers V (2013) Development of an adverse outcome pathway from drug-mediated bile salt export pump inhibition to cholestatic liver injury. Toxicol Sci 136(1):97–106
Weed DL (2005) Weight of evidence: a review of concept and methods. Risk Anal 25(6):1545–1557
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rycroft, T., Massey, O., Foran, C.M., Linkov, I. (2018). Weight of Evidence Frameworks in Evaluation of Adverse Outcome Pathways. In: Garcia-Reyero, N., Murphy, C. (eds) A Systems Biology Approach to Advancing Adverse Outcome Pathways for Risk Assessment. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66084-4_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66084-4_15
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66082-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-66084-4
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)