MeekME, BoobisA, CoteI, et al.New developments in the evolution and application of the WHO/IPCS framework on mode of action/species concordance analysis. J Appl Toxicol, 2014:34; 1–18.
2.
MeekME, PalermoCM, BachmanAN, et al.Mode of action human relevance (species concordance) framework: Evolution of the Bradford-Hill considerations and comparative analysis of weight of evidence. J Appl Toxicol, 2014:34; 595–606.
3.
Sonich-MullinC, FielderR, WiltseJ, et al.IPCS conceptual framework for evaluating a mode of action for chemical carcinogenesis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2001:34; 146–152.
4.
BoobisAR, CohenSM, DellarcoV, et al.IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2006:36; 781–792.
5.
DellarcoVL, WiltseJA. US Environmental Protection Agency's revised guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment: Incorporating mode of action data. Mutat Res, 1998:405; 273–277.
6.
PrestonRJ, WilliamsGM. DNA-reactive carcinogens: Mode of action and human cancer hazard. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2005:35; 673–683.
7.
WiltseJA, DellarcoVL. US Environmental Protection Agency's revised guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment: Evaluating a postulated mode of carcinogenic action in guiding dose-response extrapolation. Mutat Res, 2000:464; 105–115.
8.
BoobisAR, DoeJE, Heinrich-HirschB, et al.IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a noncancer mode of action for humans. Crit Rev Toxicol, 2008:38; 87–96.
9.
NRC. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington DC: The National Academies Press; 2007.
10.
AnkleyGT, BennettRS, EricksonRJ, et al.Adverse outcome pathways: A conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environ Toxicol Chem, 2010:29; 730–741.
11.
BeckerRA, AnkleyGT, EdwardsSW, et al.Increasing scientific confidence in adverse outcome pathways: Application of tailored Bradford-Hill considerations for evaluating weight of evidence. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015:72; 514–537.
12.
BurdenN, SewellF, AndersenME, et al.Adverse outcome pathways can drive non-animal approaches for safety assessment. J Appl Toxicol, 2015:35; 971–975.
13.
EdwardsSW, TanYM, VilleneuveDL, et al.Adverse outcome pathways: Organizing toxicological information to improve decision making. J Pharmacol Exp Ther, 2016:356; 170–181.
14.
PerkinsEJ, AntczakP, BurgoonL, et al.Adverse outcome pathways for regulatory applications: Examination of four case studies with different degrees of completeness and scientific confidence. Toxicol Sci, 2015:148; 14–25.
15.
VilleneuveDL, CrumpD, Garcia-ReyeroN, et al.Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development I: Strategies and principles. Toxicol Sci, 2014:142; 312–320.
16.
DelrueN, SachanaM, SakurataniY, et al.The adverse outcome pathway concept: A basis for developing regulatory decision-making tools. Altern Lab Anim, 2016:44; 417–429.
17.
TollefsenKE, ScholzS, CroninMT, et al.Applying adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) to support integrated approaches to testing and assessment (IATA). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2014:70; 629–640.
18.
PatlewiczG, SimonTW, RowlandsJC, et al.Proposing a scientific confidence framework to help support the application of adverse outcome pathways for regulatory purposes. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol, 2015:71; 463–477.
