Search

This protocol describes the design and development of a tool for evaluation of the internal validity of in vitro studies, which is needed to include the data as evidence in systematic reviews and chemical risk assessments. The tool will be designed specifically to be applied to cell culture studies, including, but not restricted to, studies meeting the new approach methodology (NAM) definition. The tool is called INVITES-IN (IN VITro Experimental Studies INternal validity). In this protocol, three of the four studies that will be performed to create the release version of INVITES-IN are described. In the first study, evaluation of existing assessment tools will be combined with focus group discussions to identify how characteristics of the design or conduct of an in vitro study can affect its internal validity. Bias domains and items considered to be of relevance for in vitro studies will be identified. In the second study, group agreement on internal validity domains and items of importance for in vitro studies will be identified via a modified Delphi methodology. In the third study, the draft version of the tool will be created, based on the data on relevance and importance of bias domains and items collected in Studies 1 and 2. A separate protocol will be prepared for the fourth study, which includes the user testing and validation of the tool, and collection of users’ experience.

EFSA Strategy 2027 outlines the need for fit-for-purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments to aid in delivering trustworthy scientific advice. This EFSA Scientific Committee guidance document helps address this need by providing a harmonised and flexible framework for developing protocols for EFSA generic assessments. The guidance replaces the ?Draft framework for protocol development for EFSA's scientific assessments? published in 2020. The two main steps in protocol development are described. The first is problem formulation, which illustrates the objectives of the assessment. Here a new approach to translating the mandated Terms of Reference into scientifically answerable assessment questions and sub-questions is proposed: the ?APRIO' paradigm (Agent, Pathway, Receptor, Intervention and Output). Owing to its cross-cutting nature, this paradigm is considered adaptable and broadly applicable within and across the various EFSA domains and, if applied using the definitions given in this guidance, is expected to help harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs and foster consistency in protocol development. APRIO may also overcome the difficulty of implementing some existing frameworks across the multiple EFSA disciplines, e.g. the PICO/PECO approach (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome). Therefore, although not mandatory, APRIO is recommended. The second step in protocol development is the specification of the evidence needs and the methods that will be applied for answering the assessment questions and sub-questions, including uncertainty analysis. Five possible approaches to answering individual (sub-)questions are outlined: using evidence from scientific literature and study reports; using data from databases other than bibliographic; using expert judgement informally collected or elicited via semi-formal or formal expert knowledge elicitation processes; using mathematical/statistical models; and ? not covered in this g

The environmental impact on health is an inevitable by-product of human activity. Environmental health sciences is a multidisciplinary field addressing complex issues on how people are exposed to hazardous chemicals that can potentially affect adversely the health of present and future generations. Exposure sciences and environmental epidemiology are becoming increasingly data-driven and their efficiency and effectiveness can significantly improve by implementing the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles for scientific data management and stewardship. This will enable data integration, interoperability and (re)use while also facilitating the use of new and powerful analytical tools such as artificial intelligence and machine learning in the benefit of public health policy, and research, development and innovation (RDI). Early research planning is critical to ensuring data is FAIR at the outset. This entails a well-informed and planned strategy concerning the identification of appropriate data and metadata to be gathered, along with established procedures for their collection, documentation, and management. Furthermore, suitable approaches must be implemented to evaluate and ensure the quality of the data. Therefore, the ‘Europe Regional Chapter of the International Society of Exposure Science’ (ISES Europe) human biomonitoring working group (ISES Europe HBM WG) proposes the development of a FAIR Environment and health registry (FAIREHR) (hereafter FAIREHR). FAIR Environment and health registry offers preregistration of studies on exposure sciences and environmental epidemiology using HBM (as a starting point) across all areas of environmental and occupational health globally. The registry is proposed to receive a dedicated web-based interface, to be electronically searchable and to be available to all relevant data providers, users and stakeholders. Planned Human biomonitoring studies would ideally be registered before formal recruitment of

Copper is an essential micronutrient and also a regulated product used in organic and in conventional farming pest management. Both deficiency and excessive exposure to copper can have adverse health effects. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA 2021 harmonised approach for establishing health-based guidance values (HBGVs) for substances that are regulated products and also nutrients was used to resolve the divergent existing HBGVs for copper. The tightly regulated homeostasis prevents toxicity manifestation in the short term, but the development of chronic copper toxicity is dependent on copper homeostasis and its tissue retention. Evidence from Wilson disease suggests that hepatic retention is indicative of potential future and possibly sudden onset of copper toxicity under conditions of continuous intake. Hence, emphasis was placed on copper retention as an early marker of potential adverse effects. The relationships between (a) chronic copper exposure and its retention in the body, particularly the liver, and (b) hepatic copper concentrations and evidence of toxicity were examined. The Scientific Committee (SC) concludes that no retention of copper is expected to occur with intake of 5 mg/day and established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 0.07 mg/kg bw. A refined dietary exposure assessment was performed, assessing contribution from dietary and non-dietary sources. Background copper levels are a significant source of copper. The contribution of copper from its use as plant protection product (PPP), food and feed additives or fertilisers is negligible. The use of copper in fertilisers or PPPs contributes to copper accumulation in soil. Infant formula and follow-on formula are important contributors to dietary exposure of copper in infants and toddlers. Contribution from non-oral sources is negligible. Dietary exposure to total copper does not exceed the HBGV in adolescents, adults, elderly and the very elderly. Neither hepatic copper retention nor adverse

The environmental impact on health is an inevitable by-product of human activity. Environmental health sciences is a multidisciplinary field addressing complex issues on how people are exposed to hazardous chemicals that can potentially affect adversely the health of present and future generations. Exposure sciences and environmental epidemiology are becoming increasingly data-driven and their efficiency and effectiveness can significantly improve by implementing the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles for scientific data management and stewardship. This will enable data integration, interoperability and (re)use while also facilitating the use of new and powerful analytical tools such as artificial intelligence and machine learning in the benefit of public health policy, and research, development and innovation (RDI). Early research planning is critical to ensuring data is FAIR at the outset. This entails a well-informed and planned strategy concerning the identification of appropriate data and metadata to be gathered, along with established procedures for their collection, documentation, and management. Furthermore, suitable approaches must be implemented to evaluate and ensure the quality of the data. Therefore, the ‘Europe Regional Chapter of the International Society of Exposure Science’ (ISES Europe) human biomonitoring working group (ISES Europe HBM WG) proposes the development of a FAIR Environment and health registry (FAIREHR) (hereafter FAIREHR). FAIR Environment and health registry offers preregistration of studies on exposure sciences and environmental epidemiology using HBM (as a starting point) across all areas of environmental and occupational health globally. The registry is proposed to receive a dedicated web-based interface, to be electronically searchable and to be available to all relevant data providers, users and stakeholders. Planned Human biomonitoring studies would ideally be registered before formal recruitment of

EFSA Strategy 2027 outlines the need for fit-for-purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments to aid in delivering trustworthy scientific advice. This EFSA Scientific Committee guidance document helps address this need by providing a harmonised and flexible framework for developing protocols for EFSA generic assessments. The guidance replaces the 'Draft framework for protocol development for EFSA's scientific assessments' published in 2020. The two main steps in protocol development are described. The first is problem formulation, which illustrates the objectives of the assessment. Here a new approach to translating the mandated Terms of Reference into scientifically answerable assessment questions and sub-questions is proposed: the 'APRIO' paradigm (Agent, Pathway, Receptor, Intervention and Output). Owing to its cross-cutting nature, this paradigm is considered adaptable and broadly applicable within and across the various EFSA domains and, if applied using the definitions given in this guidance, is expected to help harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs and foster consistency in protocol development. APRIO may also overcome the difficulty of implementing some existing frameworks across the multiple EFSA disciplines, e.g. the PICO/PECO approach (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome). Therefore, although not mandatory, APRIO is recommended. The second step in protocol development is the specification of the evidence needs and the methods that will be applied for answering the assessment questions and sub-questions, including uncertainty analysis. Five possible approaches to answering individual (sub-)questions are outlined: using evidence from scientific literature and study reports; using data from databases other than bibliographic; using expert judgement informally collected or elicited via semi-formal or formal expert knowledge elicitation processes; using mathematical/statistical models; and - not covered in this g