Physiologically based kinetic models for farm animals: Critical review of published models and future perspectives for their use in chemical risk assessment

Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models in the 10 most common species of farm animals were identified through an extensive literature search. This resulted in 39 PBK models, mostly for pharmaceuticals. The models were critically assessed using the WHO criteria for model evaluation, i.e. 1) purpos...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Toxicology in vitro 2019-10, Vol.60, p.61-70
Hauptverfasser: Lautz, L.S., Oldenkamp, R., Dorne, J.L., Ragas, A.M.J.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng ; spa
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 70
container_issue
container_start_page 61
container_title Toxicology in vitro
container_volume 60
creator Lautz, L.S.
Oldenkamp, R.
Dorne, J.L.
Ragas, A.M.J.
description Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models in the 10 most common species of farm animals were identified through an extensive literature search. This resulted in 39 PBK models, mostly for pharmaceuticals. The models were critically assessed using the WHO criteria for model evaluation, i.e. 1) purpose, 2) structure and mathematical representation, 3) computer implementation, 4) parameterisation, 5) performance, and 6) documentation. Overall, most models were calibrated and validated with published data (92% and 67% respectively) but only a fraction of model codes were published along with the manuscript (28%) and local sensitivity analysis was performed without considering global sensitivity analysis. Hence, the reliability of these PBK models is hard to assess and their potential for use in chemical risk assessment is limited. In a risk assessment context, future PBK models for farm animals should include a more generic and flexible model structure, use input parameters independent on calibration and include assessment tools to assess model performance. Development and application of PBK models for farm animal species would furthermore benefit from the setup of structured databases providing data on physiological and chemical-specific parameters as well as enzyme expression and activities to support the development of species-specific QIVIVE models. •We performed an extensive literature search to identify PBK models for 10 farm animal species.•39 models were identified and were found to be suboptimal for applications in chemical risk assessment.•Chemical risk assessment will benefit from the development of generic open source PBK models and databases on model input parameters.•PBK model development will benefit from the collection of enzyme expression, activity data and QIVIVE models.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.tiv.2019.05.002
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2296631262</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0887233319300232</els_id><sourcerecordid>2296631262</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-5e071275e361c121f29d522f5f8d4ec6c12ca9e42062591bb3c69c326c32d3f23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kU1LxDAQhoMouH78AG8Bz6352KatnmTxCwQ96Dl004mb3bapmVbZ_-KPNaWePQyBYZ53Ju9LyAVnKWdcXW3TwX2lgvEyZVnKmDggC17kZSJ5nh-SBSuKPBFSymNygrhljGWFYAvy87rZo_ON_3Cmapo9XVcINd25DgZnaOtraJBaH6itQkurzrVVg9d0FdwwETTAl4Nv6i3tx3XjcBPpP6rqamrHYQxAewjYg4k3wqw2bMAFOiJQ11GzgXYWc7ijFSIgttANZ-TIxm1w_veekvf7u7fVY_L88vC0un1OjFTFkGTAci7yDKTihgtuRVlnQtjMFvUSjIo9U5WwFEyJrOTrtTSqNFKoWLW0Qp6Sy1m3D_5zBBz01o-hiyu1EKVSkgs1TfF5ygSPGMDqPkQ3wl5zpqcQ9FbHD-opBM0yHUOIzM3MRD8mo4JG46AzULsQ7dC1d__Qv0KLkqI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2296631262</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Physiologically based kinetic models for farm animals: Critical review of published models and future perspectives for their use in chemical risk assessment</title><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><creator>Lautz, L.S. ; Oldenkamp, R. ; Dorne, J.L. ; Ragas, A.M.J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Lautz, L.S. ; Oldenkamp, R. ; Dorne, J.L. ; Ragas, A.M.J.</creatorcontrib><description>Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models in the 10 most common species of farm animals were identified through an extensive literature search. This resulted in 39 PBK models, mostly for pharmaceuticals. The models were critically assessed using the WHO criteria for model evaluation, i.e. 1) purpose, 2) structure and mathematical representation, 3) computer implementation, 4) parameterisation, 5) performance, and 6) documentation. Overall, most models were calibrated and validated with published data (92% and 67% respectively) but only a fraction of model codes were published along with the manuscript (28%) and local sensitivity analysis was performed without considering global sensitivity analysis. Hence, the reliability of these PBK models is hard to assess and their potential for use in chemical risk assessment is limited. In a risk assessment context, future PBK models for farm animals should include a more generic and flexible model structure, use input parameters independent on calibration and include assessment tools to assess model performance. Development and application of PBK models for farm animal species would furthermore benefit from the setup of structured databases providing data on physiological and chemical-specific parameters as well as enzyme expression and activities to support the development of species-specific QIVIVE models. •We performed an extensive literature search to identify PBK models for 10 farm animal species.•39 models were identified and were found to be suboptimal for applications in chemical risk assessment.•Chemical risk assessment will benefit from the development of generic open source PBK models and databases on model input parameters.•PBK model development will benefit from the collection of enzyme expression, activity data and QIVIVE models.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0887-2333</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1879-3177</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.tiv.2019.05.002</identifier><language>eng ; spa</language><publisher>Oxford: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Animal models ; Animals ; Calibration ; Chemical risk assessment ; Farms ; Food safety, feed safety ; Mathematical models ; Organic chemistry ; Parameterization ; Parameters ; Physiologically-based kinetic models, farm animals ; Reliability analysis ; Review ; Risk assessment ; Sensitivity analysis ; Species</subject><ispartof>Toxicology in vitro, 2019-10, Vol.60, p.61-70</ispartof><rights>2020 The Authors</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Oct 2019</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-5e071275e361c121f29d522f5f8d4ec6c12ca9e42062591bb3c69c326c32d3f23</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-5e071275e361c121f29d522f5f8d4ec6c12ca9e42062591bb3c69c326c32d3f23</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tiv.2019.05.002$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,781,785,3551,27929,27930,46000</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Lautz, L.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oldenkamp, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorne, J.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ragas, A.M.J.</creatorcontrib><title>Physiologically based kinetic models for farm animals: Critical review of published models and future perspectives for their use in chemical risk assessment</title><title>Toxicology in vitro</title><description>Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models in the 10 most common species of farm animals were identified through an extensive literature search. This resulted in 39 PBK models, mostly for pharmaceuticals. The models were critically assessed using the WHO criteria for model evaluation, i.e. 1) purpose, 2) structure and mathematical representation, 3) computer implementation, 4) parameterisation, 5) performance, and 6) documentation. Overall, most models were calibrated and validated with published data (92% and 67% respectively) but only a fraction of model codes were published along with the manuscript (28%) and local sensitivity analysis was performed without considering global sensitivity analysis. Hence, the reliability of these PBK models is hard to assess and their potential for use in chemical risk assessment is limited. In a risk assessment context, future PBK models for farm animals should include a more generic and flexible model structure, use input parameters independent on calibration and include assessment tools to assess model performance. Development and application of PBK models for farm animal species would furthermore benefit from the setup of structured databases providing data on physiological and chemical-specific parameters as well as enzyme expression and activities to support the development of species-specific QIVIVE models. •We performed an extensive literature search to identify PBK models for 10 farm animal species.•39 models were identified and were found to be suboptimal for applications in chemical risk assessment.•Chemical risk assessment will benefit from the development of generic open source PBK models and databases on model input parameters.•PBK model development will benefit from the collection of enzyme expression, activity data and QIVIVE models.</description><subject>Animal models</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Calibration</subject><subject>Chemical risk assessment</subject><subject>Farms</subject><subject>Food safety, feed safety</subject><subject>Mathematical models</subject><subject>Organic chemistry</subject><subject>Parameterization</subject><subject>Parameters</subject><subject>Physiologically-based kinetic models, farm animals</subject><subject>Reliability analysis</subject><subject>Review</subject><subject>Risk assessment</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Species</subject><issn>0887-2333</issn><issn>1879-3177</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kU1LxDAQhoMouH78AG8Bz6352KatnmTxCwQ96Dl004mb3bapmVbZ_-KPNaWePQyBYZ53Ju9LyAVnKWdcXW3TwX2lgvEyZVnKmDggC17kZSJ5nh-SBSuKPBFSymNygrhljGWFYAvy87rZo_ON_3Cmapo9XVcINd25DgZnaOtraJBaH6itQkurzrVVg9d0FdwwETTAl4Nv6i3tx3XjcBPpP6rqamrHYQxAewjYg4k3wqw2bMAFOiJQ11GzgXYWc7ijFSIgttANZ-TIxm1w_veekvf7u7fVY_L88vC0un1OjFTFkGTAci7yDKTihgtuRVlnQtjMFvUSjIo9U5WwFEyJrOTrtTSqNFKoWLW0Qp6Sy1m3D_5zBBz01o-hiyu1EKVSkgs1TfF5ygSPGMDqPkQ3wl5zpqcQ9FbHD-opBM0yHUOIzM3MRD8mo4JG46AzULsQ7dC1d__Qv0KLkqI</recordid><startdate>201910</startdate><enddate>201910</enddate><creator>Lautz, L.S.</creator><creator>Oldenkamp, R.</creator><creator>Dorne, J.L.</creator><creator>Ragas, A.M.J.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>6I.</scope><scope>AAFTH</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201910</creationdate><title>Physiologically based kinetic models for farm animals: Critical review of published models and future perspectives for their use in chemical risk assessment</title><author>Lautz, L.S. ; Oldenkamp, R. ; Dorne, J.L. ; Ragas, A.M.J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c368t-5e071275e361c121f29d522f5f8d4ec6c12ca9e42062591bb3c69c326c32d3f23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng ; spa</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Animal models</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Calibration</topic><topic>Chemical risk assessment</topic><topic>Farms</topic><topic>Food safety, feed safety</topic><topic>Mathematical models</topic><topic>Organic chemistry</topic><topic>Parameterization</topic><topic>Parameters</topic><topic>Physiologically-based kinetic models, farm animals</topic><topic>Reliability analysis</topic><topic>Review</topic><topic>Risk assessment</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Species</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Lautz, L.S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Oldenkamp, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dorne, J.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ragas, A.M.J.</creatorcontrib><collection>ScienceDirect Open Access Titles</collection><collection>Elsevier:ScienceDirect:Open Access</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Toxicology in vitro</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Lautz, L.S.</au><au>Oldenkamp, R.</au><au>Dorne, J.L.</au><au>Ragas, A.M.J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Physiologically based kinetic models for farm animals: Critical review of published models and future perspectives for their use in chemical risk assessment</atitle><jtitle>Toxicology in vitro</jtitle><date>2019-10</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>60</volume><spage>61</spage><epage>70</epage><pages>61-70</pages><issn>0887-2333</issn><eissn>1879-3177</eissn><abstract>Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models in the 10 most common species of farm animals were identified through an extensive literature search. This resulted in 39 PBK models, mostly for pharmaceuticals. The models were critically assessed using the WHO criteria for model evaluation, i.e. 1) purpose, 2) structure and mathematical representation, 3) computer implementation, 4) parameterisation, 5) performance, and 6) documentation. Overall, most models were calibrated and validated with published data (92% and 67% respectively) but only a fraction of model codes were published along with the manuscript (28%) and local sensitivity analysis was performed without considering global sensitivity analysis. Hence, the reliability of these PBK models is hard to assess and their potential for use in chemical risk assessment is limited. In a risk assessment context, future PBK models for farm animals should include a more generic and flexible model structure, use input parameters independent on calibration and include assessment tools to assess model performance. Development and application of PBK models for farm animal species would furthermore benefit from the setup of structured databases providing data on physiological and chemical-specific parameters as well as enzyme expression and activities to support the development of species-specific QIVIVE models. •We performed an extensive literature search to identify PBK models for 10 farm animal species.•39 models were identified and were found to be suboptimal for applications in chemical risk assessment.•Chemical risk assessment will benefit from the development of generic open source PBK models and databases on model input parameters.•PBK model development will benefit from the collection of enzyme expression, activity data and QIVIVE models.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><doi>10.1016/j.tiv.2019.05.002</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0887-2333
ispartof Toxicology in vitro, 2019-10, Vol.60, p.61-70
issn 0887-2333
1879-3177
language eng ; spa
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2296631262
source Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete
subjects Animal models
Animals
Calibration
Chemical risk assessment
Farms
Food safety, feed safety
Mathematical models
Organic chemistry
Parameterization
Parameters
Physiologically-based kinetic models, farm animals
Reliability analysis
Review
Risk assessment
Sensitivity analysis
Species
title Physiologically based kinetic models for farm animals: Critical review of published models and future perspectives for their use in chemical risk assessment
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-12T10%3A55%3A17IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Physiologically%20based%20kinetic%20models%20for%20farm%20animals:%20Critical%20review%20of%20published%20models%20and%20future%20perspectives%20for%20their%20use%20in%20chemical%20risk%20assessment&rft.jtitle=Toxicology%20in%20vitro&rft.au=Lautz,%20L.S.&rft.date=2019-10&rft.volume=60&rft.spage=61&rft.epage=70&rft.pages=61-70&rft.issn=0887-2333&rft.eissn=1879-3177&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.tiv.2019.05.002&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2296631262%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2296631262&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0887233319300232&rfr_iscdi=true