Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
J. Jaworska, S. Gabbert, T. Aldenberg (2010)
Towards optimization of chemical testing under REACH: a Bayesian network approach to Integrated Testing Strategies.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 57 2-3
L. Edler (2009)
3.2 Quantification of uncertainty within and between species and the role of uncertainty factorsHuman & Experimental Toxicology, 28
T. Jager, T. Vermeire, M. Rikken, P. Poel (2001)
Opportunities for a probabilistic risk assessment of chemicals in the European Union.Chemosphere, 43 2
L. Eriksson, J. Jaworska, Andrew Worth, Mark Cronin, R. McDowell, P. Gramatica (2003)
Methods for reliability and uncertainty assessment and for applicability evaluations of classification- and regression-based QSARs.Environmental Health Perspectives, 111
C. Tebby, E. Mombelli (2012)
A Kernel‐Based Method for Assessing Uncertainty on Individual QSAR PredictionsMolecular Informatics, 31
U. Sahlin (2013)
Uncertainty in QSAR PredictionsAlternatives to Laboratory Animals, 41
T. Aven (2010)
Some reflections on uncertainty analysis and managementReliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 95
M. Cronin, John Walker, J. Jaworska, M. Comber, C. Watts, Andrew Worth (2003)
Use of QSARs in international decision-making frameworks to predict ecologic effects and environmental fate of chemical substances.Environmental Health Perspectives, 111
John Walker, L. Carlsen, J. Jaworska (2003)
Improving Opportunities for Regulatory Acceptance of QSARs: The Importance of Model Domain, Uncertainty, Validity and PredictabilityQsar & Combinatorial Science, 22
(2006)
Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH), establishing a European Chemicals Agency, amending Directive 1999/45/EC and repealing Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 and Commission Regulation (EC) No 1488/94 as well as Council Directive 76/769/ EEC and Commission Directives 91/155/EEC, 93/67/EEC, 93/105/EC and 2000/21/ECOfficial Journal of the European Union, L396
U. Sahlin, Monika Filipsson, T. Öberg (2011)
A Risk Assessment Perspective of Current Practice in Characterizing Uncertainties in QSAR Regression PredictionsMolecular Informatics, 30
W. Viscusi, J. Hamilton, P.Christen Dockins (1997)
Conservative versus Mean Risk Assessments: Implications for Superfund PoliciesJournal of Environmental Economics and Management, 34
U. Sahlin (2015)
Assessment of uncertainty in chemical models by Bayesian probabilities: Why, when, how?Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 29
J. Ahlers, F. Stock, B. Werschkun (2008)
Integrated testing and intelligent assessment—new challenges under REACHEnvironmental Science and Pollution Research, 15
S. Hansson (1999)
Adjusting Scientific Practices to the Precautionary PrincipleHuman and Ecological Risk Assessment, 5
S. Cassani, S. Kovarich, E. Papa, P. Roy, M. Rahmberg, Sara Nilsson, U. Sahlin, N. Jeliazkova, N. Kochev, Ognyan Pukalov, I. Tetko, S. Brandmaier, M. Durjava, B. Kolar, W. Peijnenburg, P. Gramatica (2013)
Evaluation of CADASTER QSAR Models for the Aquatic Toxicity of (Benzo)triazoles and Prioritisation by Consensus PredictionAlternatives to Laboratory Animals, 41
Chemical regulation allows non-in vivo testing (i.e. in silico-derived and in vitro-derived) information to replace experimental values from in vivo studies in hazard and risk assessments. Although non-in vitro testing information on chemical activities or properties is subject to added uncertainty as compared to in vivo testing information, this uncertainty is commonly not (fully) taken into account. Considering uncertainty in predictions from quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSARs), which are a form of non-in vivo testing information, may improve the way that QSARs support chemical safety assessment under the EU Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) system. We argue that it is useful to consider uncertainty in QSAR predictions, as it: a) supports rational decision-making; b) facilitates cautious risk management; c) informs uncertainty analysis in probabilistic risk assessment; d) may aid the evaluation of QSAR predictions in weight-of-evidence approaches; and e) provides a probabilistic model to verify the experimental data used in risk assessment. The discussion is illustrated by using case studies of QSAR integrated hazard and risk assessment from the EU-financed CADASTER project.
Alternative to Laboratory Animals – SAGE
Published: Mar 1, 2013
Keywords: decision-making; non-testing information; probabilistic risk assessment; uncertainty analysis
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.