Cancer Hazard Evaluations for Contemporary Needs: Highlights From New National Toxicology Program Evaluations and Methodological Advancements.

The National Toxicology Program strives to raise awareness of cancer hazards in our environment. Identifying cancer hazards is key to primary prevention, informing public health decision making, and decreasing the global cancer burden. In December 2021, the US congressionally mandated 15th Report on Carcinogens was released, adding 8 new substances to the cumulative report. Chronic infection with Helicobacter pylori is listed as "known to be a human carcinogen." Antimony trioxide and 6 haloacetic acids found as water disinfection by-products-dichloroacetic acid, dibromoacetic acid, bromochloroacetic acid, tribromoacetic acid, bromodichloroacetic acid, chlorodibromoacetic acid-are listed as "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." A new dashboard provides interactive visualization and interrogation of the 256 listed substances, their uses, and associated cancers. Also, the National Toxicology Program recently published a Cancer Hazard Assessment Report on exposure scenarios associated with circadian disruption, concluding that persistent night shift work can cause breast cancer and certain lighting conditions may cause cancer. As highlighted in these reports and evaluations, we are evolving our approaches to meet contemporary challenges. These approaches include focusing on real-world exposures and advancing our methods to address challenges in cancer hazard assessments (eg, developing more structured approaches to evaluate mechanistic data and incorporating read-across approaches to assess chemicals lacking adequate human or animal cancer data). To promote public health, we provide information on environmental health disparities and disease prevention. Building on these efforts, we aim to continue our contributions to the war on cancer, declared 50 years ago.

Evaluation of a semi-automated data extraction tool for public health literature-based reviews: Dextr.

INTRODUCTION: There has been limited development and uptake of machine-learning methods to automate data extraction for literature-based assessments. Although advanced extraction approaches have been applied to some clinical research reviews, existing methods are not well suited for addressing toxicology or environmental health questions due to unique data needs to support reviews in these fields. OBJECTIVES: To develop and evaluate a flexible, web-based tool for semi-automated data extraction that: 1) makes data extraction predictions with user verification, 2) integrates token-level annotations, and 3) connects extracted entities to support hierarchical data extraction. METHODS: Dextr was developed with Agile software methodology using a two-team approach. The development team outlined proposed features and coded the software. The advisory team guided developers and evaluated Dextr's performance on precision, recall, and extraction time by comparing a manual extraction workflow to a semi-automated extraction workflow using a dataset of 51 environmental health animal studies. RESULTS: The semi-automated workflow did not appear to affect precision rate (96.0% vs. 95.4% manual, p = 0.38), resulted in a small reduction in recall rate (91.8% vs. 97.0% manual, p < 0.01), and substantially reduced the median extraction time (436 s vs. 933 s per study manual, p < 0.01) compared to a manual workflow. DISCUSSION: Dextr provides similar performance to manual extraction in terms of recall and precision and greatly reduces data extraction time. Unlike other tools, Dextr provides the ability to extract complex concepts (e.g., multiple experiments with various exposures and doses within a single study), properly connect the extracted elements within a study, and effectively limit the work required by researchers to generate machine-readable, annotated exports. The Dextr tool addresses data-extraction challenges associated with environmental health sciences literature with a simple user interface, incorporates the key capabilities of user verification and entity connecting, provides a platform for further automation developments, and has the potential to improve data extraction for literature reviews in this and other fields.

A focus on cross-purpose tools, automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines, and evaluation of automation tools: a summary of significant discussions at the fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR).

The fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held 5-6 November 2019 in The Hague, the Netherlands. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose goal is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient systematic reviews of scientific evidence. The group seeks to facilitate the development and acceptance of automated techniques for systematic reviews. In 2018, the major themes discussed were the transferability of automation tools (i.e., tools developed for other purposes that might be used by systematic reviewers), the automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines and applications, and approaches for the evaluation of automation tools.

Still moving toward automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the third meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR).

The third meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held 17-18 October 2017 in London, England. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose goal is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient systematic reviews of scientific evidence. The group seeks to facilitate the development and widespread acceptance of automated techniques for systematic reviews. The meeting's conclusion was that the most pressing needs at present are to develop approaches for validating currently available tools and to provide increased access to curated corpora that can be used for validation. To that end, ICASR's short-term goals in 2018-2019 are to propose and publish protocols for key tasks in systematic reviews and to develop an approach for sharing curated corpora for validating the automation of the key tasks.

Expanding the Concept of Translational Research: Making a Place for Environmental Health Sciences.

SUMMARY: The National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) introduces a new translational research framework that builds upon previous biomedical models to create a more comprehensive and integrated environmental health paradigm. The framework was developed as a graphical construct that illustrates the complexity of designing, implementing, and tracking translational research in environmental health. We conceptualize translational research as a series of concentric rings and nodes, defining "translation" as movement either from one ring to another or between nodes on a ring. A "Fundamental Questions" ring expands upon the research described in other frameworks as "basic" to include three interrelated concepts critical to basic science research: research questions, experimental settings, and organisms. This feature enables us to capture more granularity and thus facilitates an approach for categorizing translational research and its growth over time. We anticipate that the framework will help researchers develop compelling long-term translational research stories and accelerate public health impacts by clearly mapping out opportunities for collaborations. By using this paradigm, researchers everywhere will be better positioned to design research programs, identify research partners based on cross-disciplinary research needs, identify stakeholders who are likely to use the research for environmental decision-making and intervention, and track progress toward common goals. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3657.

Moving toward the automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the second meeting of International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR).

The second meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held 3-4 October 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose aim is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient systematic reviews of scientific evidence. Having automated tools for systematic review should enable more transparent and timely review, maximizing the potential for identifying and translating research findings to practical application. The meeting brought together multiple stakeholder groups including users of summarized research, methodologists who explore production processes and systematic review quality, and technologists such as software developers, statisticians, and vendors. This diversity of participants was intended to ensure effective communication with numerous stakeholders about progress toward automation of systematic reviews and stimulate discussion about potential solutions to identified challenges. The meeting highlighted challenges, both simple and complex, and raised awareness among participants about ongoing efforts by various stakeholders. An outcome of this forum was to identify several short-term projects that participants felt would advance the automation of tasks in the systematic review workflow including (1) fostering better understanding about available tools, (2) developing validated datasets for testing new tools, (3) determining a standard method to facilitate interoperability of tools such as through an application programming interface or API, and (4) establishing criteria to evaluate the quality of tools' output. ICASR 2016 provided a beneficial forum to foster focused discussion about tool development and resources and reconfirm ICASR members' commitment toward systematic reviews' automation.

Evaluation of 4-methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) in a combined irritancy and Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) in mice.

4-Methylcyclohexanemethanol (MCHM) is a flotation reagent used in fine coal beneficiation. On January 9, 2014, crude MCHM, a mixture containing predominantly MCHM, was inadvertently released into the Elk River, a municipal water source that serves about 300,000 people in the Charleston, WV area, resulting in temporary contamination of 15 percent of the state's tap water and causing significant dermal exposure. The current studies were undertaken to determine whether crude MCHM or MCHM has the potential to produce dermal irritancy and/or sensitization. BALB/c female mice were treated daily for 3 consecutive days by direct epicutaneous application of 25 µL of various concentrations of crude MCHM or MCHM to the dorsum of each ear. A mouse ear-swelling test was used to determine irritancy potential and was undertaken in combination with the standardized Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) to determine skin sensitizing potential. MCHM was found to produce skin irritation at concentrations above 20% and did not produce sensitization. Crude MCHM also produced irritation, although weaker, and in addition was found to be a weak to moderate skin sensitizer. The results are discussed in terms of potential human health hazard.

Evaluating the Impact of the U.S. National Toxicology Program: A Case Study on Hexavalent Chromium.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating the impact of federally funded research with a broad, methodical, and objective approach is important to ensure that public funds advance the mission of federal agencies. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop a methodical approach that would yield a broad assessment of National Toxicology Program's (NTP's) effectiveness across multiple sectors and demonstrate the utility of the approach through a case study. METHODS: A conceptual model was developed with defined activities, outputs (products), and outcomes (proximal, intermediate, distal) and applied retrospectively to NTP's research on hexavalent chromium (CrVI). Proximal outcomes were measured by counting views of and requests for NTP's products by external stakeholders. Intermediate outcomes were measured by bibliometric analysis. Distal outcomes were assessed through Web and LexisNexis searches for documents related to legislation or regulation changes. RESULTS: The approach identified awareness of NTP's work on CrVI by external stakeholders (proximal outcome) and citations of NTP's research in scientific publications, reports, congressional testimonies, and legal and policy documents (intermediate outcome). NTP's research was key to the nation's first-ever drinking water standard for CrVI adopted by California in 2014 (distal outcome). By applying this approach to a case study, the utility and limitations of the approach were identified, including challenges to evaluating the outcomes of a research program. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified a broad and objective approach for assessing NTP's effectiveness, including methodological needs for more thorough and efficient impact assessments in the future. Citation: Xie Y, Holmgren S, Andrews DMK, Wolfe MS. 2017. Evaluating the impact of the U.S. National Toxicology Program: a case study on hexavalent chromium. Environ Health Perspect 125:181-188; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP21.

GRADE: Assessing the quality of evidence in environmental and occupational health.

There is high demand in environmental health for adoption of a structured process that evaluates and integrates evidence while making decisions and recommendations transparent. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework holds promise to address this demand. For over a decade, GRADE has been applied successfully to areas of clinical medicine, public health, and health policy, but experience with GRADE in environmental and occupational health is just beginning. Environmental and occupational health questions focus on understanding whether an exposure is a potential health hazard or risk, assessing the exposure to understand the extent and magnitude of risk, and exploring interventions to mitigate exposure or risk. Although GRADE offers many advantages, including its flexibility and methodological rigor, there are features of the different sources of evidence used in environmental and occupational health that will require further consideration to assess the need for method refinement. An issue that requires particular attention is the evaluation and integration of evidence from human, animal, in vitro, and in silico (computer modeling) studies when determining whether an environmental factor represents a potential health hazard or risk. Assessment of the hazard of exposures can produce analyses for use in the GRADE evidence-to-decision (EtD) framework to inform risk-management decisions about removing harmful exposures or mitigating risks. The EtD framework allows for grading the strength of the recommendations based on judgments of the certainty in the evidence (also known as quality of the evidence), as well as other factors that inform recommendations such as social values and preferences, resource implications, and benefits. GRADE represents an untapped opportunity for environmental and occupational health to make evidence-based recommendations in a systematic and transparent manner. The objectives of this article are to provide an overview of GRADE, discuss GRADE's applicability to environmental health, and identify priority areas for method assessment and development.

Systematic review and evidence integration for literature-based environmental health science assessments.

BACKGROUND: Systematic-review methodologies provide objectivity and transparency to the process of collecting and synthesizing scientific evidence in reaching conclusions on specific research questions. There is increasing interest in applying these procedures to address environmental health questions. OBJECTIVES: The goal was to develop a systematic-review framework to address environmental health questions by extending approaches developed for clinical medicine to handle the breadth of data relevant to environmental health sciences (e.g., human, animal, and mechanistic studies). METHODS: The Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) adapted guidance from authorities on systematic-review and sought advice during development of the OHAT Approach through consultation with technical experts in systematic review and human health assessments, as well as scientific advisory groups and the public. The method was refined by considering expert and public comments and through application to case studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Here we present a seven-step framework for systematic review and evidence integration for reaching hazard identification conclusions: 1) problem formulation and protocol development, 2) search for and select studies for inclusion, 3) extract data from studies, 4) assess the quality or risk of bias of individual studies, 5) rate the confidence in the body of evidence, 6) translate the confidence ratings into levels of evidence, and 7) integrate the information from different evidence streams (human, animal, and "other relevant data" including mechanistic or in vitro studies) to develop hazard identification conclusions. CONCLUSION: The principles of systematic review can be successfully applied to environmental health questions to provide greater objectivity and transparency to the process of developing conclusions.