Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick?
Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies mea...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Brooks, Amy C. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2019 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2019 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Ecotoxicology - Springer US, 1992, 28(2019), 10 vom: 06. Nov., Seite 1198-1209 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:28 ; year:2019 ; number:10 ; day:06 ; month:11 ; pages:1198-1209 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2027713115 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2027713115 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230503044751.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 200819s2019 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2027713115 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s10646-019-02128-9-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 570 |a 630 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 12 |2 ssgn | ||
| 084 | |a BIODIV |q DE-30 |2 fid | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Brooks, Amy C. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2019 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s) 2019 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies measure biological responses to test item exposure. Responses can be highly variable, with limited opportunity for control of extrinsic sources of variability. It is critical to distinguish between treatment-related effects and background ‘normal variability’ when interpreting results. Historical control data (HCD) can be a valuable tool in contextualising results from single studies against previous studies performed under similar conditions. This paper discusses the case for better use of HCD in ecotoxicology assessments, illustrating with case studies the value and difficulties of using HCD in interpretation of results of standard and higher-tier study designs. HCD are routinely used in mammalian toxicology for human health assessments, but not directly in ecotoxicology. The possible reasons for this are discussed e.g., different data types, the potential to mask effects, and the lack of guidance. These concerns are real but not insurmountable and we would like to see organisations such as OECD, EFSA and USEPA develop guidance on the principles of HCD collection. Hopefully, this would lead to greater use of HCD and regulatory acceptance. We believe this is not only a scientifically valid approach but also an ethical issue that is in line with societally driven legal mandates to minimise the use of vertebrate testing in chemical regulatory decision making. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Historical control data | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Ecotoxicology | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Variability | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Endpoints | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Regulatory | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Foudoulakis, Manousos |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Schuster, Hanna S. |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wheeler, James R. |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Ecotoxicology |d Springer US, 1992 |g 28(2019), 10 vom: 06. Nov., Seite 1198-1209 |w (DE-627)165922230 |w (DE-600)34042-X |w (DE-576)055556809 |x 0963-9292 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:28 |g year:2019 |g number:10 |g day:06 |g month:11 |g pages:1198-1209 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a FID-BIODIV | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-GEO | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_70 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_252 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 28 |j 2019 |e 10 |b 06 |c 11 |h 1198-1209 | ||
| author_variant |
a c b ac acb m f mf h s s hs hss j r w jr jrw |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:09639292:2019----::itrclotodtfrhitrrttooeooiiya |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2019 |
| publishDate |
2019 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 doi (DE-627)OLC2027713115 (DE-He213)s10646-019-02128-9-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 630 VZ 12 ssgn BIODIV DE-30 fid Brooks, Amy C. verfasserin aut Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? 2019 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies measure biological responses to test item exposure. Responses can be highly variable, with limited opportunity for control of extrinsic sources of variability. It is critical to distinguish between treatment-related effects and background ‘normal variability’ when interpreting results. Historical control data (HCD) can be a valuable tool in contextualising results from single studies against previous studies performed under similar conditions. This paper discusses the case for better use of HCD in ecotoxicology assessments, illustrating with case studies the value and difficulties of using HCD in interpretation of results of standard and higher-tier study designs. HCD are routinely used in mammalian toxicology for human health assessments, but not directly in ecotoxicology. The possible reasons for this are discussed e.g., different data types, the potential to mask effects, and the lack of guidance. These concerns are real but not insurmountable and we would like to see organisations such as OECD, EFSA and USEPA develop guidance on the principles of HCD collection. Hopefully, this would lead to greater use of HCD and regulatory acceptance. We believe this is not only a scientifically valid approach but also an ethical issue that is in line with societally driven legal mandates to minimise the use of vertebrate testing in chemical regulatory decision making. Historical control data Ecotoxicology Variability Endpoints Regulatory Foudoulakis, Manousos aut Schuster, Hanna S. aut Wheeler, James R. aut Enthalten in Ecotoxicology Springer US, 1992 28(2019), 10 vom: 06. Nov., Seite 1198-1209 (DE-627)165922230 (DE-600)34042-X (DE-576)055556809 0963-9292 nnns volume:28 year:2019 number:10 day:06 month:11 pages:1198-1209 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-GEO GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 AR 28 2019 10 06 11 1198-1209 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 doi (DE-627)OLC2027713115 (DE-He213)s10646-019-02128-9-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 630 VZ 12 ssgn BIODIV DE-30 fid Brooks, Amy C. verfasserin aut Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? 2019 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies measure biological responses to test item exposure. Responses can be highly variable, with limited opportunity for control of extrinsic sources of variability. It is critical to distinguish between treatment-related effects and background ‘normal variability’ when interpreting results. Historical control data (HCD) can be a valuable tool in contextualising results from single studies against previous studies performed under similar conditions. This paper discusses the case for better use of HCD in ecotoxicology assessments, illustrating with case studies the value and difficulties of using HCD in interpretation of results of standard and higher-tier study designs. HCD are routinely used in mammalian toxicology for human health assessments, but not directly in ecotoxicology. The possible reasons for this are discussed e.g., different data types, the potential to mask effects, and the lack of guidance. These concerns are real but not insurmountable and we would like to see organisations such as OECD, EFSA and USEPA develop guidance on the principles of HCD collection. Hopefully, this would lead to greater use of HCD and regulatory acceptance. We believe this is not only a scientifically valid approach but also an ethical issue that is in line with societally driven legal mandates to minimise the use of vertebrate testing in chemical regulatory decision making. Historical control data Ecotoxicology Variability Endpoints Regulatory Foudoulakis, Manousos aut Schuster, Hanna S. aut Wheeler, James R. aut Enthalten in Ecotoxicology Springer US, 1992 28(2019), 10 vom: 06. Nov., Seite 1198-1209 (DE-627)165922230 (DE-600)34042-X (DE-576)055556809 0963-9292 nnns volume:28 year:2019 number:10 day:06 month:11 pages:1198-1209 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-GEO GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 AR 28 2019 10 06 11 1198-1209 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 doi (DE-627)OLC2027713115 (DE-He213)s10646-019-02128-9-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 630 VZ 12 ssgn BIODIV DE-30 fid Brooks, Amy C. verfasserin aut Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? 2019 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies measure biological responses to test item exposure. Responses can be highly variable, with limited opportunity for control of extrinsic sources of variability. It is critical to distinguish between treatment-related effects and background ‘normal variability’ when interpreting results. Historical control data (HCD) can be a valuable tool in contextualising results from single studies against previous studies performed under similar conditions. This paper discusses the case for better use of HCD in ecotoxicology assessments, illustrating with case studies the value and difficulties of using HCD in interpretation of results of standard and higher-tier study designs. HCD are routinely used in mammalian toxicology for human health assessments, but not directly in ecotoxicology. The possible reasons for this are discussed e.g., different data types, the potential to mask effects, and the lack of guidance. These concerns are real but not insurmountable and we would like to see organisations such as OECD, EFSA and USEPA develop guidance on the principles of HCD collection. Hopefully, this would lead to greater use of HCD and regulatory acceptance. We believe this is not only a scientifically valid approach but also an ethical issue that is in line with societally driven legal mandates to minimise the use of vertebrate testing in chemical regulatory decision making. Historical control data Ecotoxicology Variability Endpoints Regulatory Foudoulakis, Manousos aut Schuster, Hanna S. aut Wheeler, James R. aut Enthalten in Ecotoxicology Springer US, 1992 28(2019), 10 vom: 06. Nov., Seite 1198-1209 (DE-627)165922230 (DE-600)34042-X (DE-576)055556809 0963-9292 nnns volume:28 year:2019 number:10 day:06 month:11 pages:1198-1209 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-GEO GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 AR 28 2019 10 06 11 1198-1209 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 doi (DE-627)OLC2027713115 (DE-He213)s10646-019-02128-9-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 630 VZ 12 ssgn BIODIV DE-30 fid Brooks, Amy C. verfasserin aut Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? 2019 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies measure biological responses to test item exposure. Responses can be highly variable, with limited opportunity for control of extrinsic sources of variability. It is critical to distinguish between treatment-related effects and background ‘normal variability’ when interpreting results. Historical control data (HCD) can be a valuable tool in contextualising results from single studies against previous studies performed under similar conditions. This paper discusses the case for better use of HCD in ecotoxicology assessments, illustrating with case studies the value and difficulties of using HCD in interpretation of results of standard and higher-tier study designs. HCD are routinely used in mammalian toxicology for human health assessments, but not directly in ecotoxicology. The possible reasons for this are discussed e.g., different data types, the potential to mask effects, and the lack of guidance. These concerns are real but not insurmountable and we would like to see organisations such as OECD, EFSA and USEPA develop guidance on the principles of HCD collection. Hopefully, this would lead to greater use of HCD and regulatory acceptance. We believe this is not only a scientifically valid approach but also an ethical issue that is in line with societally driven legal mandates to minimise the use of vertebrate testing in chemical regulatory decision making. Historical control data Ecotoxicology Variability Endpoints Regulatory Foudoulakis, Manousos aut Schuster, Hanna S. aut Wheeler, James R. aut Enthalten in Ecotoxicology Springer US, 1992 28(2019), 10 vom: 06. Nov., Seite 1198-1209 (DE-627)165922230 (DE-600)34042-X (DE-576)055556809 0963-9292 nnns volume:28 year:2019 number:10 day:06 month:11 pages:1198-1209 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-GEO GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 AR 28 2019 10 06 11 1198-1209 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 doi (DE-627)OLC2027713115 (DE-He213)s10646-019-02128-9-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 570 630 VZ 12 ssgn BIODIV DE-30 fid Brooks, Amy C. verfasserin aut Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? 2019 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies measure biological responses to test item exposure. Responses can be highly variable, with limited opportunity for control of extrinsic sources of variability. It is critical to distinguish between treatment-related effects and background ‘normal variability’ when interpreting results. Historical control data (HCD) can be a valuable tool in contextualising results from single studies against previous studies performed under similar conditions. This paper discusses the case for better use of HCD in ecotoxicology assessments, illustrating with case studies the value and difficulties of using HCD in interpretation of results of standard and higher-tier study designs. HCD are routinely used in mammalian toxicology for human health assessments, but not directly in ecotoxicology. The possible reasons for this are discussed e.g., different data types, the potential to mask effects, and the lack of guidance. These concerns are real but not insurmountable and we would like to see organisations such as OECD, EFSA and USEPA develop guidance on the principles of HCD collection. Hopefully, this would lead to greater use of HCD and regulatory acceptance. We believe this is not only a scientifically valid approach but also an ethical issue that is in line with societally driven legal mandates to minimise the use of vertebrate testing in chemical regulatory decision making. Historical control data Ecotoxicology Variability Endpoints Regulatory Foudoulakis, Manousos aut Schuster, Hanna S. aut Wheeler, James R. aut Enthalten in Ecotoxicology Springer US, 1992 28(2019), 10 vom: 06. Nov., Seite 1198-1209 (DE-627)165922230 (DE-600)34042-X (DE-576)055556809 0963-9292 nnns volume:28 year:2019 number:10 day:06 month:11 pages:1198-1209 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-GEO GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 AR 28 2019 10 06 11 1198-1209 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Ecotoxicology 28(2019), 10 vom: 06. Nov., Seite 1198-1209 volume:28 year:2019 number:10 day:06 month:11 pages:1198-1209 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Ecotoxicology 28(2019), 10 vom: 06. Nov., Seite 1198-1209 volume:28 year:2019 number:10 day:06 month:11 pages:1198-1209 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Historical control data Ecotoxicology Variability Endpoints Regulatory |
| dewey-raw |
570 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Ecotoxicology |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Brooks, Amy C. @@aut@@ Foudoulakis, Manousos @@aut@@ Schuster, Hanna S. @@aut@@ Wheeler, James R. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2019-11-06T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
165922230 |
| dewey-sort |
3570 |
| id |
OLC2027713115 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2027713115</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503044751.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2019 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2027713115</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10646-019-02128-9-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">12</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BIODIV</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brooks, Amy C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies measure biological responses to test item exposure. Responses can be highly variable, with limited opportunity for control of extrinsic sources of variability. It is critical to distinguish between treatment-related effects and background ‘normal variability’ when interpreting results. Historical control data (HCD) can be a valuable tool in contextualising results from single studies against previous studies performed under similar conditions. This paper discusses the case for better use of HCD in ecotoxicology assessments, illustrating with case studies the value and difficulties of using HCD in interpretation of results of standard and higher-tier study designs. HCD are routinely used in mammalian toxicology for human health assessments, but not directly in ecotoxicology. The possible reasons for this are discussed e.g., different data types, the potential to mask effects, and the lack of guidance. These concerns are real but not insurmountable and we would like to see organisations such as OECD, EFSA and USEPA develop guidance on the principles of HCD collection. Hopefully, this would lead to greater use of HCD and regulatory acceptance. We believe this is not only a scientifically valid approach but also an ethical issue that is in line with societally driven legal mandates to minimise the use of vertebrate testing in chemical regulatory decision making.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Historical control data</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ecotoxicology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Variability</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Endpoints</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Regulatory</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Foudoulakis, Manousos</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schuster, Hanna S.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wheeler, James R.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Ecotoxicology</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer US, 1992</subfield><subfield code="g">28(2019), 10 vom: 06. Nov., Seite 1198-1209</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)165922230</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)34042-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)055556809</subfield><subfield code="x">0963-9292</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:28</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:10</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1198-1209</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-BIODIV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-GEO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_252</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">28</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">10</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">1198-1209</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Brooks, Amy C. |
| spellingShingle |
Brooks, Amy C. ddc 570 ssgn 12 fid BIODIV misc Historical control data misc Ecotoxicology misc Variability misc Endpoints misc Regulatory Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? |
| authorStr |
Brooks, Amy C. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)165922230 |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
570 - Life sciences; biology 630 - Agriculture & related technologies |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0963-9292 |
| topic_title |
570 630 VZ 12 ssgn BIODIV DE-30 fid Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? Historical control data Ecotoxicology Variability Endpoints Regulatory |
| topic |
ddc 570 ssgn 12 fid BIODIV misc Historical control data misc Ecotoxicology misc Variability misc Endpoints misc Regulatory |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 570 ssgn 12 fid BIODIV misc Historical control data misc Ecotoxicology misc Variability misc Endpoints misc Regulatory |
| topic_browse |
ddc 570 ssgn 12 fid BIODIV misc Historical control data misc Ecotoxicology misc Variability misc Endpoints misc Regulatory |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Ecotoxicology |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
165922230 |
| dewey-tens |
570 - Life sciences; biology 630 - Agriculture |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Ecotoxicology |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)165922230 (DE-600)34042-X (DE-576)055556809 |
| title |
Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2027713115 (DE-He213)s10646-019-02128-9-p |
| title_full |
Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? |
| author_sort |
Brooks, Amy C. |
| journal |
Ecotoxicology |
| journalStr |
Ecotoxicology |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
500 - Science 600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2019 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
1198 |
| author_browse |
Brooks, Amy C. Foudoulakis, Manousos Schuster, Hanna S. Wheeler, James R. |
| container_volume |
28 |
| class |
570 630 VZ 12 ssgn BIODIV DE-30 fid |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Brooks, Amy C. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 |
| dewey-full |
570 630 |
| title_sort |
historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? |
| title_auth |
Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? |
| abstract |
Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies measure biological responses to test item exposure. Responses can be highly variable, with limited opportunity for control of extrinsic sources of variability. It is critical to distinguish between treatment-related effects and background ‘normal variability’ when interpreting results. Historical control data (HCD) can be a valuable tool in contextualising results from single studies against previous studies performed under similar conditions. This paper discusses the case for better use of HCD in ecotoxicology assessments, illustrating with case studies the value and difficulties of using HCD in interpretation of results of standard and higher-tier study designs. HCD are routinely used in mammalian toxicology for human health assessments, but not directly in ecotoxicology. The possible reasons for this are discussed e.g., different data types, the potential to mask effects, and the lack of guidance. These concerns are real but not insurmountable and we would like to see organisations such as OECD, EFSA and USEPA develop guidance on the principles of HCD collection. Hopefully, this would lead to greater use of HCD and regulatory acceptance. We believe this is not only a scientifically valid approach but also an ethical issue that is in line with societally driven legal mandates to minimise the use of vertebrate testing in chemical regulatory decision making. © The Author(s) 2019 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies measure biological responses to test item exposure. Responses can be highly variable, with limited opportunity for control of extrinsic sources of variability. It is critical to distinguish between treatment-related effects and background ‘normal variability’ when interpreting results. Historical control data (HCD) can be a valuable tool in contextualising results from single studies against previous studies performed under similar conditions. This paper discusses the case for better use of HCD in ecotoxicology assessments, illustrating with case studies the value and difficulties of using HCD in interpretation of results of standard and higher-tier study designs. HCD are routinely used in mammalian toxicology for human health assessments, but not directly in ecotoxicology. The possible reasons for this are discussed e.g., different data types, the potential to mask effects, and the lack of guidance. These concerns are real but not insurmountable and we would like to see organisations such as OECD, EFSA and USEPA develop guidance on the principles of HCD collection. Hopefully, this would lead to greater use of HCD and regulatory acceptance. We believe this is not only a scientifically valid approach but also an ethical issue that is in line with societally driven legal mandates to minimise the use of vertebrate testing in chemical regulatory decision making. © The Author(s) 2019 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies measure biological responses to test item exposure. Responses can be highly variable, with limited opportunity for control of extrinsic sources of variability. It is critical to distinguish between treatment-related effects and background ‘normal variability’ when interpreting results. Historical control data (HCD) can be a valuable tool in contextualising results from single studies against previous studies performed under similar conditions. This paper discusses the case for better use of HCD in ecotoxicology assessments, illustrating with case studies the value and difficulties of using HCD in interpretation of results of standard and higher-tier study designs. HCD are routinely used in mammalian toxicology for human health assessments, but not directly in ecotoxicology. The possible reasons for this are discussed e.g., different data types, the potential to mask effects, and the lack of guidance. These concerns are real but not insurmountable and we would like to see organisations such as OECD, EFSA and USEPA develop guidance on the principles of HCD collection. Hopefully, this would lead to greater use of HCD and regulatory acceptance. We believe this is not only a scientifically valid approach but also an ethical issue that is in line with societally driven legal mandates to minimise the use of vertebrate testing in chemical regulatory decision making. © The Author(s) 2019 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC FID-BIODIV SSG-OLC-GEO GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_252 |
| container_issue |
10 |
| title_short |
Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick? |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Foudoulakis, Manousos Schuster, Hanna S. Wheeler, James R. |
| author2Str |
Foudoulakis, Manousos Schuster, Hanna S. Wheeler, James R. |
| ppnlink |
165922230 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T16:27:00.636Z |
| _version_ |
1803575907464511488 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2027713115</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230503044751.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">200819s2019 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2027713115</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s10646-019-02128-9-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">570</subfield><subfield code="a">630</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">12</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">BIODIV</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-30</subfield><subfield code="2">fid</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Brooks, Amy C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Historical control data for the interpretation of ecotoxicity data: are we missing a trick?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2019</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Wildlife can be exposed to chemicals in the environment from various anthropogenic sources. Ecotoxicity studies, undertaken to address the risks from potential exposure to chemicals, vary in their design e.g. duration of exposure, effect types and endpoints measured. Ecotoxicity studies measure biological responses to test item exposure. Responses can be highly variable, with limited opportunity for control of extrinsic sources of variability. It is critical to distinguish between treatment-related effects and background ‘normal variability’ when interpreting results. Historical control data (HCD) can be a valuable tool in contextualising results from single studies against previous studies performed under similar conditions. This paper discusses the case for better use of HCD in ecotoxicology assessments, illustrating with case studies the value and difficulties of using HCD in interpretation of results of standard and higher-tier study designs. HCD are routinely used in mammalian toxicology for human health assessments, but not directly in ecotoxicology. The possible reasons for this are discussed e.g., different data types, the potential to mask effects, and the lack of guidance. These concerns are real but not insurmountable and we would like to see organisations such as OECD, EFSA and USEPA develop guidance on the principles of HCD collection. Hopefully, this would lead to greater use of HCD and regulatory acceptance. We believe this is not only a scientifically valid approach but also an ethical issue that is in line with societally driven legal mandates to minimise the use of vertebrate testing in chemical regulatory decision making.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Historical control data</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ecotoxicology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Variability</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Endpoints</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Regulatory</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Foudoulakis, Manousos</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Schuster, Hanna S.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wheeler, James R.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Ecotoxicology</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer US, 1992</subfield><subfield code="g">28(2019), 10 vom: 06. Nov., Seite 1198-1209</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)165922230</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)34042-X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)055556809</subfield><subfield code="x">0963-9292</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:28</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2019</subfield><subfield code="g">number:10</subfield><subfield code="g">day:06</subfield><subfield code="g">month:11</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1198-1209</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10646-019-02128-9</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">FID-BIODIV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-GEO</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_252</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">28</subfield><subfield code="j">2019</subfield><subfield code="e">10</subfield><subfield code="b">06</subfield><subfield code="c">11</subfield><subfield code="h">1198-1209</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399618 |