Table 6.
Ranking of the methods for integrating lines of evidence.
| Approach | Prescriptive naturea | Relevancea | Feasibilitya |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bayesian inference | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Bradford Hill | 2 | 4 | 4 |
| Decision tree | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| Epid-Tox | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Hope and Clarkson | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Hypothesis based | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| IARC | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| INCa | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Multi-criteria analysis | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Modified Bradford Hill | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Navigation Guide | 1 | 3 | 3 |
| OHAT | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| SCENIHR | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| WCRF/AICR | 3 | 3 | 4 |
| Weighted Bradford Hill | 3 | 4 | 4 |
Note: IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer; INCa, Institut National du Cancer/French National Cancer Institute; OHAT, Office of Health Assessment and Translation; SCENIHR, Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks; WCRF/AICR, World Cancer Research Fund and American Institute for Cancer Research.
The rankings were assigned to the methods by the authors collectively and reflect relative consideration of each of the three aspects defined and outlined in the Methods and Table 1: the extent of prescriptive nature contributing to transparency and reproducibility, relevance to be broadly applied within ANSES, and ease of implementation in terms of time and material/human resources (feasibility). Each aspect is ranked from 1 (i.e., the least) to 4 (i.e., the most).