Triangulation is the practice of obtaining more reliable answers to research questions through integrating results from several different approaches, where each approach has different key sources of potential bias that are unrelated to each other. With respect to causal questions in aetiological epidemiology, if the results of different approaches all point to the same conclusion, this strengthens confidence in the finding. This is particularly the case when the key sources of bias of some of the approaches would predict that findings would point in opposite directions if they were due to such biases. Where there are inconsistencies, understanding the key sources of bias of each approach can help to identify what further research is required to address the causal question. The aim of this paper is to illustrate how triangulation might be used to improve causal inference in aetiological epidemiology. We propose a minimum set of criteria for use in triangulation in aetiological epidemiology, summarize the key sources of bias of several approaches and describe how these might be integrated within a triangulation framework. We emphasize the importance of being explicit about the expected direction of bias within each approach, whenever this is possible, and seeking to identify approaches that would be expected to bias the true causal effect in different directions. We also note the importance, when comparing results, of taking account of differences in the duration and timing of exposures. We provide three examples to illustrate these points.

/pdf/triangulation-in-aetiological-epidemiology-13jom1ecn5.pdf

Triangulation in aetiological epidemiology.

DISCLAIMER The use of company or product name(s) is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. A toxicological Profile for PCBs, Draft for Public Comment, was released in December 1998. This edition supercedes any previously released draft or final profile. Toxicological profiles are revised and republished as necessary, but no less than once every three years. The toxicological profiles are developed in response to the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986 (Public law 99-499) which amended the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA or Superfund). This public law directed ATSDR to prepared toxicological profiles for hazardous substances most commonly found at facilities on the CERCLA National Priorities List and that pose the most significant potential threat to human health, as determined by ATSDR and the EPA. The availability of the revised priority list of 275 hazardous substances was announced in the Administrator of ATSDR to prepare a toxicological profile for each substance on the list. Toxicological Profiles are a unique compilation of toxicological information on a given hazardous substance. Each profile reflects a comprehensive and extensive evaluation, summary, and interpretation of available toxicologic and epidemiologic information on a substance. Health care providers treating patients potentially exposed to hazardous substances will find the following information helpful for fast answers to often-asked questions. Chapter 1: Public Health Statement: The Public Health Statement can be a useful tool for educating patients about possible exposure to a hazardous substance. It explains a substance's relevant toxicologic properties in a nontechnical, question-and-answer format, and it includes a review of the general health effects observed following exposure. Chapter 3: Health Effects: Specific health effects of a given hazardous compound are reported by type of health effect (death, systemic, immunologic, reproductive), by route of exposure, and by length of exposure (acute, intermediate, and chronic). In addition, both human and animal studies are reported in this section. NOTE: Not all health effects reported in this section are necessarily observed in the clinical setting. Please refer to the Public Health Statement to identify general health effects observed following exposure. The following additional material can be ordered through the ATSDR Information Center: Case Studies in Environmental Medicine: Taking an Exposure History—The importance of taking an exposure history and how to conduct one are described, and an example of a thorough exposure history is provided. Other …

Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)

This report is an overview of the current state of the science relative to environmental endocrine disruption in humans, laboratory testing, and wildlife species. Background information is presented on the field of endocrinology, the nature of hormones, and potential sites for endocrine disruption, with specific examples of chemicals affecting these sites. An attempt is made to present objectively the issue of endocrine disruption, consider working hypotheses, offer opposing viewpoints, analyze the available information, and provide a reasonable assessment of the problem. Emphasis is placed on disruption of central nervous system--pituitary integration of hormonal and sexual behavioral activity, female and male reproductive system development and function, and thyroid function. In addition, the potential role of environmental endocrine disruption in the induction of breast, testicular, and prostate cancers, as well as endometriosis, is evaluated. The interrelationship of the endocrine and immune system is documented. With respect to endocrine-related ecological effects, specific case examples from the peer-reviewed literature of marine invertebrates and representatives of the five classes of vertebrates are presented and discussed. The report identifies some data gaps in our understanding of the environmental endocrine disruption issue and recommends a few research needs. Finally, the report states the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Science Policy Council's interim position on endocrine disruption and lists some of the ongoing activities to deal with this matter.

Environmental endocrine disruption: an effects assessment and analysis.

The threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) is a pragmatic risk assessment tool that is based on the principle of establishing a human exposure threshold value for all chemicals, below which there is a very low probability of an appreciable risk to human health. The concept that there are levels of exposure that do not cause adverse effects is inherent in setting acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for chemicals with known toxicological profiles. The TTC principle extends this concept by proposing that a de minimis value can be identified for many chemicals, in the absence of a full toxicity database, based on their chemical structures and the known toxicity of chemicals which share similar structural characteristics. The establishment and application of widely accepted TTC values would benefit consumers, industry and regulators. By avoiding unnecessary toxicity testing and safety evaluations when human intakes are below such a threshold, application of the TTC approach would focus limited resources of time, cost, animal use and expertise on the testing and evaluation of substances with the greatest potential to pose risks to human health and thereby contribute to a reduction in the use of animals. An Expert Group of the European branch of the International Life Sciences Institute-ILSI Europe-has examined the TTC principle for its wider applicability in food safety evaluation. The Expert Group examined metabolism and accumulation, structural alerts, endocrine disrupting chemicals and specific endpoints, such as neurotoxicity, teratogenicity, developmental toxicity, allergenicity and immunotoxicity, and determined whether such properties or endpoints had to be taken into consideration specifically in a step-wise approach. The Expert Group concluded that the TTC principle can be applied for low concentrations in food of chemicals that lack toxicity data, provided that there is a sound intake estimate. The use of a decision tree to apply the TTC principle is proposed, and this paper describes the step-wise process in detail. Proteins, heavy metals and polyhalogenated-dibenzodioxins and related compounds were excluded from this approach. When assessing a chemical, a review of prior knowledge and context of use should always precede the use of the TTC decision tree. The initial step is the identification and evaluation of possible genotoxic and/or high potency carcinogens. Following this step, non-genotoxic substances are evaluated in a sequence of steps related to the concerns that would be associated with increasing intakes. For organophosphates a TTC of 18microg per person per day (0.3 microg/kg bw/day) is proposed, and when the compound is not an OP, the TTC values for the Cramer structural classes III, II and I, with their respective TTC levels (e.g. 1800, 540 and 90 microg per person per day; or 30, 9 and 1.5 microg/kg bw /day), would be applied sequentially. All other endpoints or properties were shown to have a distribution of no observed effect levels (NOELs) similar to the distribution of NOELs for general toxicity endpoints in Cramer classes I, II and III. The document was discussed with a wider audience during a workshop held in March 2003 (see list of workshop participants).

Structure-Based Thresholds of Toxicological Concern (TTC): Guidance for Application to Substances Present at Low Levels in the Diet

Smoking is a major risk factor for a variety of diseases, including cancer and immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Tobacco smoke contains a mixture of chemicals, including a host of reactive oxygen- and nitrogen species (ROS and RNS), among others, that can damage cellular and sub-cellular targets, such as lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids. A growing body of evidence supports a key role for smoking-induced ROS and the resulting oxidative stress in inflammation and carcinogenesis. This comprehensive and up-to-date review covers four interrelated topics, including 'smoking', 'oxidative stress', 'inflammation', and 'cancer'. The review discusses each of the four topics, while exploring the intersections among the topics by highlighting the macromolecular damage attributable to ROS. Specifically, oxidative damage to macromolecular targets, such as lipid peroxidation, post-translational modification of proteins, and DNA adduction, as well as enzymatic and non-enzymatic antioxidant defense mechanisms, and the multi-faceted repair pathways of oxidized lesions are described. Also discussed are the biological consequences of oxidative damage to macromolecules if they evade the defense mechanisms and/or are not repaired properly or in time. Emphasis is placed on the genetic- and epigenetic alterations that may lead to transcriptional deregulation of functionally-important genes and disruption of regulatory elements. Smoking-associated oxidative stress also activates the inflammatory response pathway, which triggers a cascade of events of which ROS production is an initial yet indispensable step. The release of ROS at the site of damage and inflammation helps combat foreign pathogens and restores the injured tissue, while simultaneously increasing the burden of oxidative stress. This creates a vicious cycle in which smoking-related oxidative stress causes inflammation, which in turn, results in further generation of ROS, and potentially increased oxidative damage to macromolecular targets that may lead to cancer initiation and/or progression.

/pdf/relationships-among-smoking-oxidative-stress-inflammation-3s2jakrhj3.pdf

Relationships among smoking, oxidative stress, inflammation, macromolecular damage, and cancer.

For the 5-year period 1991 to 1995, 1536 vegetable and 802 fruit samples were analyzed. The purpose of this study was to determine if pesticides were present on Ontario-produced fruits and vegetables, and if so, to determine if residues violated maximum residue limits (MRLs). Overall, 31.5% of the samples had no detectable pesticide residues, whereas 68.5% contained one or more residues. Most of the residues were present at very low concentrations; 48% of the detections were < 0.1 parts per million (ppm), and 86% were < 1 ppm. However, violations of MRL were observed in only 3.2% of the vegetables samples and 3.1% of the fruit samples. In addition, 4.8% of the samples contained a "technical" violation, that is, there was no specified MRL for the pesticide-commodity combination and the residues exceeded 0.1 ppm. Of the detectable residues, 63% were < 10% of the MRL, whereas 89% were < 50% of the MRL. More fruit samples (91.4%) had a detectable residue, compared with vegetable samples (56.6%). Fruit is often treated close to harvest or post harvest to ensure that wholesome produce reaches the consumer. Forty-six percent of the samples contained 2 or more residues, and 2% of all samples had more than 5 different pesticides detected; fruit samples tended to have more multiple residues. The most frequently found pesticides were captan, the dithiocarbamate fungicides, endosulfan, azinphos-methyl, phosmet, parathion, and iprodione. These pesticides were also used in the greatest quantity for crop production. Overall, the data agree fairly closely with those reported for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Pesticide Data Program because the 2 programs have similar analytical goals and objectives.

Pesticide residues on fruits and vegetables from Ontario, Canada, 1991-1995.

Can Exposure Characterization Explain Concurrence or Discordance between Toxicology and Epidemiology

Toxicity and Safety Evaluation of Pesticides

https://link-springer-com-443.webvpn.jmu.edu.cn/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-642-35374-1_59.pdf

Extrapolation Factors and Safety Factors in Toxicology

Default Factors in Quantitative Risk Assessment

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Leonard Ritter

Author Tools

Chat about Author