The DOI matches its Crossref record.
IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Noncancer Mode of Action for Humans
Abstract
Structured frameworks are extremely useful in promoting transparent, harmonized approaches to the risk assessment of chemicals. One area where this has been particularly successful is in the analysis of modes of action (MOAs) for chemical carcinogens in experimental animals and their relevance to humans. The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) recently published an updated version of its MOA framework in animals to address human relevance (cancer human relevance framework, or HRF). This work has now been extended to noncancer effects, with the eventual objective of harmonizing framework approaches to both cancer and noncancer endpoints. As in the cancer HRF, the first step is to determine whether the weight of evidence based on experimental observations is sufficient to establish a hypothesized MOA. This comprises a series of key events causally related to the toxic effect, identified using an approach based on the Bradford Hill criteria. These events are then compared qualitatively and, next, quantitatively between experimental animals and humans. The output of the analysis is a clear statement of conclusions, together with the confidence, analysis, and implications of the findings. This framework provides a means of ensuring a transparent evaluation of the data, identification of key data gaps and of information that would be of value in the further risk assessment of the compound, such as on dose-response relationships, and recognition of potentially susceptible subgroups, for example, based on life-stage considerations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses
Vandenberg, L. N., Colborn, T., Hayes, T. B., Heindel, J. J., Jacobs, D. R., Lee, D.-H., Shioda, T., Soto, A. M., vom Saal, F. S., Welshons, W. V., et al. (2012) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/er.2011-1050 · Cited by 3,209
State-of-the-science of endocrine disrupting chemicals, 2012
Bergman, Å., Heindel, J., Jobling, S., Kidd, K., & Zoeller, R. T. (2012) · Toxicology Letters · doi:10.1016/j.toxlet.2012.03.020 · Cited by 1,388
European Chemical Agency (ECHA) and European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) with the technical support of the Joint Research Centre (JRC), Andersson, N., Arena, M., Auteri, D., Barmaz, S., Grignard, E., Kienzler, A., Lepper, P., Lostia, A. M., Munn, S., et al. (2018) · EFSA Journal · doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5311 · Cited by 555
Self-citationTarazona, J. V., Court-Marques, D., Tiramani, M., Reich, H., Pfeil, R., Istace, F., & Crivellente, F. (2017) · Archives of Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s00204-017-1962-5 · Cited by 402
Judson, R., Houck, K., Martin, M., Richard, A. M., Knudsen, T. B., Shah, I., Little, S., Wambaugh, J., Woodrow Setzer, R., Kothya, P., et al. (2016) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfw092 · Cited by 232
Metadata
- Authors
- Boobis, A. R., Doe, J. E., Heinrich-Hirsch, B., (Bette) Meek, M. E., Munn, S., Ruchirawat, M., Schlatter, J., Seed, J., & Vickers, C.
- Venue
- Critical Reviews in Toxicology
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2008-01
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 87-96
- ISSN
- 0045-6446 (ISSN-L)
- 1040-8444
- 1547-6898
- OpenAlex
- W2146976723
- Cited by
- 542
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 11.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Noncancer Mode of Action for Humans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10408440701749421
- The paper
- Boobis, A. R., Doe, J. E., Heinrich-Hirsch, B., (Bette) Meek, M. E., Munn, S., Ruchirawat, M., Schlatter, J., Seed, J., & Vickers, C. (2008). IPCS Framework for Analyzing the Relevance of a Noncancer Mode of Action for Humans. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408440701749421
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.