PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Jennifer Seed

Publications and source records attributed to Jennifer Seed.

13 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Framework for use of toxicity screening tools in context-based decision-making.

One of the principal applications of toxicology data is to inform risk assessments and support risk management decisions that are protective of human health. Ideally, a risk assessor would have available all of the relevant information on (a) the toxicity profile of the agent of interest; (b) its interactions with living systems; and (c) the known or projected exposure scenarios: to whom, how much, by which route(s), and how often. In practice, however, complete information is seldom available. Nonetheless, decisions still must be made. Screening-level assays and tools can provide support for many aspects of the risk assessment process, as long as the limitations of the tools are understood and to the extent that the added uncertainty the tools introduce into the process can be characterized and managed. Use of these tools for decision-making may be an end in itself for risk assessment and decision-making or a preliminary step to more extensive data collection and evaluation before assessments are undertaken or completed and risk management decisions made. This paper describes a framework for the application of screening tools for human health decision-making, although with some modest modification, it could be made applicable to environmental settings as well. The framework consists of problem formulation, development of a screening strategy based on an assessment of critical data needs, and a data analysis phase that employs weight-of-evidence criteria and uncertainty analyses, and leads to context-based decisions. Criteria for determining the appropriate screening tool(s) have been identified. The choice and use of the tool(s) will depend on the question and the level of uncertainty that may be appropriate for the context in which the decision is being made. The framework is iterative, in that users may refine the question(s) as they proceed. Several case studies illustrate how the framework may be used effectively to address specific questions for any endpoint of toxicity.

Animals↗
PubMed2004

Evaluating the human relevance of chemically induced animal tumors.

Defining the mode(s) of action by which chemicals induce tumors in laboratory animals has become a key to judgments about the relevance of such tumor data for human risk assessment. Frameworks for analyzing mode of action information appear in recent U.S. EPA and IPCS publications relating to cancer risk assessment. This FORUM paper emphasizes that mode of action analytical frameworks depend on both qualitative and quantitative evaluations of relevant data and information: (1) presenting key events in the animal mode of action, (2) developing a "concordance" table for side-by-side comparison of key events as defined in animal studies with comparable information from human systems, and (3) using data and information from mode of action analyses, as well as information on relative sensitivity and exposure, to make weight-of-evidence judgments about the relevance of animal tumors for human cancer assessments. The paper features a systematic analysis for using mode of action information from animal and human studies, based in part on case examples involving environmental chemicals and pharmaceuticals.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

Neurobehavioral assessment: a survey of use and value in safety assessment studies.

This report describes the results of a survey designed to evaluate the contribution of F1 neurobehavioral testing to hazard identification and characterization in safety assessment studies. (To review the details of the distributed survey, please see the supplementary data for this article on the journal's Web site.) The survey provided information about studies completed in industrial laboratories in the United States, Europe, and Japan since 1990 on 174 compounds. The types of compounds included were pharmaceutical (81%), agricultural (7%), industrial (1%), or were undefined (10%). Information collected included the intended use of the test agent, general study design and methodology, the types and characteristics of F1 behavioral evaluations, and the frequency with which agents affected neurobehavioral parameters in comparison to other F0 and F1 generation parameters. F1 general toxicology parameters such as mortality, pre- and postweaning body weight, and food intake were assessed in most studies and were affected more frequently than other parameters by the test agents. F1 behavioral parameters were assessed less consistently across studies, and were less frequently affected by the agents tested. Although affected by agents less often than general toxicology parameters, F1 behavioral parameters along with other parameters defined the no-observed-effect level (NOEL) in 17/113 (15%) of studies and solely defined the NOEL in 3/113 (2.6%) of studies. Thus, F1 behavioral parameters sometimes improved on the standard toxicological measures of hazard identification. While not detecting agent effects as readily as some measures, the F1 behavioral parameters provide information about agent effects on specialized functions of developing offspring not provided by other standard measures of toxicity. The survey results emphasize the need for further research into the methods of behavioral assessment as well as the mechanisms underlying the neurobehavioral alterations.

Animals↗
PubMed2003

A framework for human relevance analysis of information on carcinogenic modes of action.

The human relevance framework (HRF) outlines a four-part process, beginning with data on the mode of action (MOA) in laboratory animals, for evaluating the human relevance of animal tumors. Drawing on U.S. EPA and IPCS proposals for animal MOA analysis, the HRF expands those analyses to include a systematic evaluation of comparability, or lack of comparability, between the postulated animal MOA and related information from human data sources. The HRF evolved through a series of case studies representing several different MOAs. HRF analyses produced divergent outcomes, some leading to complete risk assessment and others discontinuing the process, according to the data available from animal and human sources. Two case examples call for complete risk assessments. One is the default: When data are insufficient to confidently postulate a MOA for test animals, the animal tumor data are presumed to be relevant for risk assessment and a complete risk assessment is necessary. The other is the product of a data-based finding that the animal MOA is relevant to humans. For the specific MOA and endpoint combinations studied for this article, full risk assessments are necessary for potentially relevant MOAs involving cytotoxicity and cell proliferation in animals and humans (Case Study 6, chloroform) and formation of urinary-tract calculi (Case Study 7, melamine). In other circumstances, when data-based findings for the chemical and endpoint combination studied indicate that the tumor-related animal MOA is unlikely to have a human counterpart, there is little reason to continue the risk assessment for that combination. Similarly, when qualitative considerations identify MOAs specific to the test species or quantitative considerations indicate that the animal MOA is unlikely to occur in humans, such hazard findings are generally conclusive and further risk assessment is not necessary for the endpoint-MOA combination under study. Case examples include a tumor-related protein specific to test animals (Case Study 3, d-limonene), the tumor consequences of hormone suppression typical of laboratory animals but not humans (Case Study 4, atrazine), and chemical-related enhanced hormone clearance rates in animals relative to humans (Case Study 5, phenobarbital). The human relevance analysis is highly specific for the chemical-MOA-tissue-endpoint combination under analysis in any particular case: different tissues, different endpoints, or alternative MOAs for a given chemical may result in different human relevance findings. By providing a systematic approach to using MOA data, the HRF offers a new tool for the scientific community's overall effort to enhance the predictive power, reliability and transparency of cancer risk assessment.

Animals↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Harmonization of rat fetal external and visceral terminology and classification. Report of the Fourth Workshop on the Terminology in Developmental Toxicology, Berlin, 18-20 April 2002.

This article is a report on the Fourth Berlin Workshop on Terminology in Developmental Toxicology, which was held in April 2002. The workshop is part of an international project in the field of harmonization of terminology in developmental toxicology supported by IPCS. The goal of the Harmonization Project is to ensure better chemical risk assessment. The aim of this Fourth Workshop was to discuss the results of a previously conducted survey on classification of external and visceral anomalies, which are listed in the international glossary, developed under the auspices of IFTS (1997 glossary). The discussions among experts from research institutions, regulatory agencies, and industries were mainly focussed on terms for which there was disagreement and/or uncertainties and the possible reasons. For the illustration of "gray-zone" anomalies, pictures were provided by the participants, which constituted the basis for detailed discussions. There was high agreement that most of the external anomalies (>66%) should be classified as malformations. The few external anomalies for which there was low agreement to classify as a malformation were discussed in detail. None of the external findings, which had in the survey a high agreement, were categorized as a variation.A high agreement regarding the classification of approximately one-third of visceral anomalies was achieved with 34 and 2% being described as malformation and variation, respectively. Most of the visceral findings had low agreement indices and there appeared to be several reasons for this. Thus, the response, 'Not known/not used in the laboratory' (N) was often given. A couple of reasons for difficulties in the classification of an anomaly were that it is only rarely seen upon fetal examination or tends to be species specific. Furthermore, the classification of some anomalies as malformation or variation will remain vague as the decision must be made on a case-by-case basis. Factors affecting the decision include: the availability of appropriate historical control data, description of the grading and severity, whether the anomaly occurs in isolation or whether there is a relationship with an abnormal process, and finally, if the change represents an irreversible one, affecting human and/or animal health. It was concluded that a severity grading, supported by pictures of the anomaly, would be especially helpful to classify certain changes as malformation or as variation. Several of the soft tissue changes were considered likely to be the consequence of functional disorders and thus not strictly developmental anomalies. The possibility to describe a finding as 'Not Malformation' (Unclassified) was agreed upon. As a general conclusion it was emphasized that the observation of a permanent structural change should be considered to be a warning of possible consequences to humans, even when there is no apparent adverse effect on health and survival in adult animals of the species under investigation. Therefore, research is needed to further investigate postnatal consequences. Future collaboration in the field of reproductive and developmental toxicology should aim to further develop and implement a harmonized approach to the interpretation of study data. Therefore, this terminology work will continue in close cooperation with the IPCS Harmonization Project. A Steering Group should be established to facilitate the implementation of harmonized terminology into daily scientific work and its regulatory application.

Abnormalities, Drug-Induced↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Overview: Using mode of action and life stage information to evaluate the human relevance of animal toxicity data.

A complete mode of action human relevance analysis--as distinct from mode of action (MOA) analysis alone--depends on robust information on the animal MOA, as well as systematic comparison of the animal data with corresponding information from humans. In November 2003, the International Life Sciences Institute's Risk Science Institute (ILSI RSI) published a 2-year study using animal and human MOA information to generate a four-part Human Relevance Framework (HRF) for systematic and transparent analysis of MOA data and information. Based mainly on non-DNA-reactive carcinogens, the HRF features a "concordance" analysis of MOA information from both animal and human sources, with a focus on determining the appropriate role for each MOA data set in human risk assessment. With MOA information increasingly available for risk assessment purposes, this article illustrates the further applicability of the HRF for reproductive, developmental, neurologic, and renal endpoints, as well as cancer. Based on qualitative and quantitative MOA considerations, the MOA/human relevance analysis also contributes to identifying data needs and issues essential for the dose-response and exposure assessment steps in the overall risk assessment.

Aging↗