Establishing a communication and engagement strategy to facilitate the adoption of the adverse outcome pathways in radiation research and regulation

References

• Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, Hoff DJ, Hornung MW, Johnson RD, Mount DR, Nichols JW, Russom CL, Schmieder PK, et al. 2010. Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem. 29(3):730–741.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Becker RA, Ankley GT, Edwards SW, Kennedy SW, Linkov I, Meek B, Sachana M, Segner H, Van Der Burg B, Villeneuve DL, et al. 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.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bell SM, Angrish MM, Wood CE, Edwards SW. 2016. Integrating publicly available data to generate computationally predicted adverse outcome pathways for fatty liver. Toxicol Sci. 150(2):510–520.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyer J, Petersen K, Song Y, Ruus A, Grung M, Bakke T, Tollefsen KE. 2014. Environmental risk assessment of combined effects in aquatic ecotoxicology: a discussion paper. Mar Environ Res. 96:81–91.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boice JD, Jr, Ellis ED, Golden AP, Girardi DJ, Cohen SS, Chen H, Mumma MT, Shore RE, Leggett RW. 2018. The past informs the future: an overview of the million worker study and the Mallinckrodt chemical works cohort. Health Phys. 114(4):381–385.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan V, Beaton D, Hamada N, Wilkins R, Burtt J, Leblanc J, Cool D, Garnier-Laplace J, Laurier D, Le Y, et al. 2022. Adverse outcome pathway: a path toward better data consolidation and global co-ordination of radiation research. Int J Radiat Biol. 98: in this issue.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan V, Hamada N, Monceau V, Ebrahimian T, Adam N, Wilkins RC, Sebastian S, Patel ZS, Huff JL, Simonetto C, et al. 2021e. Expert consultation is vital for adverse outcome pathway development: a case example of cardiovascular effects of ionizing radiation. Int J Radiat Biol. 97(11):1516–1525.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan V, Said Z, Daka J, Sadi B, Bijlani D, Marchetti F, Beaton D, Gaw A, Li C, Burtt J, et al. 2019. Is there a role for the adverse outcome pathway framework to support radiation protection? Int J Radiat Biol. 95(2):225–232.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan V, Sherman S, Said Z, Yauk CL, Stainforth R. 2021c. A case example of a radiation-relevant adverse outcome pathway to lung cancer. Int J Radiat Biol. 97(1):68–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan V, Stricklin D, Cool D. 2021a. The integration of the adverse outcome pathway framework to radiation risk assessment. Int J Radiat Biol. 97(1):60–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan V, Villeneuve D, Cool D. 2021b. Collaborative efforts are needed among the scientific community to advance the adverse outcome pathway concept in areas of radiation risk assessment. Int J Radiat Biol. 97(6):815–823.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chauhan V, Wilkins RC, Beaton D, Sachana M, Delrue N, Yauk C, O’Brien J, Marchetti F, Halappanavar S, Boyd M, et al. 2021d. Bringing together scientific disciplines for collaborative undertakings: a vision for advancing the adverse outcome pathway framework. Int J Radiat Biol. 97(4):431–441.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conolly RB, Ankley GT, Cheng W, Mayo ML, Miller DH, Perkins EJ, Villeneuve DL, Watanabe KH. 2017. Quantitative adverse outcome pathways and their application to predictive toxicology. Environ Sci Technol. 51(8):4661–4672.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dainiak N, Feinendegen LE, Hyer RN, Locke PA, Waltar AE. 2018. Synergies resulting from a systems biology approach: integrating radiation epidemiology and radiobiology to optimize protection of the public after exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation. Int J Radiat Biol. 94(1):2–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Delrue N, Sachana M, Sakuratani Y, Gourmelon A, Leinala E, Diderich R. 2016. The adverse outcome pathway concept: a basis for developing regulatory decision-making tools. Altern Lab Anim. 44(5):417–429.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hauptmann M, Daniels RD, Cardis E, Cullings H, Kendall G, Laurier D, Linet M, Little M, Lubin JH, Preston D, et al. 2020. Epidemiological studies of low-dose ionizing radiation and cancer: summary bias assessment and meta-analysis. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2020(56):188–200.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Helm JS, Rudel RA. 2020. Adverse outcome pathways for ionizing radiation and breast cancer involve direct and indirect DNA damage, oxidative stress, inflammation, genomic instability, and interaction with hormonal regulation of the breast. Arch Toxicol. 94(5):1511–1549.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• ICRP. 2007. The 2007 recommendations of the international commission on radiological protection. ICRP Publication 103. Ann. ICRP. 37(2–4):3.
   Google Scholar
• ICRP. 2012. ICRP statement on tissue reactions/early and late effects of radiation in normal tissues and organs – threshold doses for tissue reactions in a radiation protection context. ICRP Publication 118. Ann. ICRP. 41(1/2):1.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser JC, Blettner M, Stathopoulos GT. 2021. Biologically based models of cancer risk in radiation research. Int J Radiat Biol. 97(1):2–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knapen D, Angrish MM, Fortin MC, Katsiadaki I, Leonard M, Margiotta-Casaluci L, Munn S, O'Brien JM, Pollesch N, Smith LC, et al. 2018. Adverse outcome pathway networks I: development and applications. Environ Toxicol Chem. 37(6):1723–1733.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LaLone CA, Ankley GT, Belanger SE, Embry MR, Hodges G, Knapen D, Munn S, Perkins EJ, Rudd MA, Villeneuve DL, et al. 2017. Advancing the adverse outcome pathway framework-An international horizon scanning approach. Environ Toxicol Chem. 36(6):1411–1421.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laurier D, Rühm W, Paquet F, Applegate K, Cool D, Clement C. 2021. Areas of research to support the system of radiological protection. Radiat Environ Biophys. 60(4):519–530.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leist M, Ghallab A, Graepel R, Marchan R, Hassan R, Bennekou SH, Limonciel A, Vinken M, Schildknecht S, Waldmann T, et al. 2017. Adverse outcome pathways: opportunities, limitations and open questions. Arch Toxicol. 91(11):3477–3505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Little MP, Wakeford R, Bouffler SD, Abalo K, Hauptmann M, Hamada N, Kendall GM. 2022. Review of the risk of cancer following low and moderate doses of sparsely ionising radiation received in early life in groups with individually estimated doses. Environ Int. 159:106983.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Locke PA, Myers DB. Jr. 2011. A replacement-first approach to toxicity testing is necessary to successfully reauthorize TSCA. ALTEX. 28(4):266–272.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Moe SJ, Wolf R, Xie L, Landis WG, Kotamaki N, Tollefsen KE. 2021. Quantification of an adverse outcome pathway network by bayesian regression and bayesian network modeling. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 17(1):147–164.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Research Council 2007. Toxicity testing in the 21st century: a vision and a strategy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 10.1080/10937404.2010.483176.
   Google Scholar
• NCRP. 2015. Health effects of low doses of radiation: perspectives on integrating radiation biology and epidemiology, NCRP Commentary No. 24, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2015.
   Google Scholar
• NCRP. 2018. Implications of recent epidemiologic studies for the linear-non threshold model and radiation protection, NCRP Commentary 27, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2018.
   Google Scholar
• NCRP. 2020. Approaches for integrating information from radiation biology and epidemiology to enhance low-dose health risk assessment, NCRP Report No. 186, National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, 2020.
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2016a. 67, OECD environment, health and safety publications 2016. Paris, France: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/44bb06c1-en
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2016a. Guidance document for the use of adverse outcome pathways in developing Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA). Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 260, ENV/JM/MONO
   Google Scholar
• OECD. 2016b. Users’ handbook supplement to the guidance document for developing and assessing adverse outcome pathways. environment, health and safety publications, series on testing and Assessment No. 233, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, France; [accessed 2016 Oct 25]. http://aopkb.org/common/AOP_Handbook.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Oki NO, Nelms MD, Bell SM, Mortensen HM, Edwards SW. 2016. Accelerating adverse outcome pathway development using publicly available data sources. Curr Environ Health Rep. 3(1):53–63.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pittman ME, Edwards SW, Ives C, Mortensen HM. 2018. AOP-DB: a database resource for the exploration of adverse outcome pathways through integrated association networks. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol. 343:71–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pollesch NL, Villeneuve DL, O’Brien JM. 2019. Extracting and benchmarking emerging adverse outcome pathway knowledge. Toxicol Sci. 168(2):349–364.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preston RJ, Rühm W, Azzam EI, Boice JD, Bouffler S, Held KD, Little MP, Shore RE, Shuryak I, Weil MM. 2021. Adverse outcome pathways, key events, and radiation risk assessment. Int J Radiat Biol. 97(6):804–814.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Real A, Garnier-Laplace J. 2020. The importance of deriving adequate wildlife benchmark values to optimize radiological protection in various environmental exposure situations. J Environ Radioact. 211:105902.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rühm W, Laurier D, Wakeford R. 2022. Cancer risk following low doses of ionising radiation – current epidemiological evidence and implications for radiological protection. Mutat Res Genet Toxicol Environ Mutagen. 873:503436.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Salbu B, Teien HC, Lind OC, Tollefsen KE. 2019. Why is the multiple stressor concept of relevance to radioecology? Int J Radiat Biol. 95(7):1015–1024.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sauer UG, Barter RA, Becker RA, Benfenati E, Berggren E, Hubesch B, Hollnagel HM, Inawaka K, Keene AM, Mayer P, et al. 2020. 21st century approaches for evaluating exposures, biological activity, and risks of complex substances: workshop highlights. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 111:104583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sazykina TG. 2018. Population sensitivities of animals to chronic ionizing radiation-model predictions from mice to elephant. J Environ Radioact. 182:177–182.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic P. 2012. The perception gap: radiation and risk. Bull at Sci. 68(3):67–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Song Y, Xie L, Lee Y, Tollefsen KE. 2020. De Novo development of a Quantitative Adverse Outcome Pathway (qAOP) Network for Ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation using targeted laboratory tests and automated data mining. Environ Sci Technol. 54(20):13147–13156.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation. (2006) UNSCEAR 2006 Report to the General Assembly with Scientific Annexes. Volume 1, Annex a Epidemiological studies of radiation and cancer, United Nations, New York, 2008.
   Google Scholar
• Villeneuve DL, Crump D, Garcia-Reyero N, Hecker M, Hutchinson TH, LaLone CA, Landesmann B, Lettieri T, Munn S, Nepelska M, et al. 2014. Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development I: strategies and principles. Toxicol Sci. 142(2):312–320.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang Z, Walker GW, Muir DCG, Nagatani-Yoshida K. 2020. Toward a global understanding of chemical pollution: a first comprehensive analysis of national and regional chemical inventories. Environ Sci Technol. 54(5):2575–2584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar