ArticleALTEX2016
Toward Good Read-Across Practice (GRAP) guidance.
Article in ALTEX, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
71 citing papers in PubMed.
- Demonstrating the reliability of in vivo metabolomics-based chemical grouping: Part 2 - Consistency of group-specific metabolic effects.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Applicability of NAMs to support a read-across based hazard assessment workflow for systemic toxicity: a conazole case study.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Temperature and osmotic pressure dual-stimuli-responsive ophthalmic gels embedded with HPCD-modified nanoparticles for prolonged-release delivery of natamycin.Drug delivery and translational research · 2026Article
- The nitrovinyl moiety determines the cyto- and genotoxic profiles of β-nitrostyrene derivatives: evidence from in silico and in vitro evaluation.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- AI redefine untargeted metabolomics: estimating chemical amounts for a Human Exposome Project.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Article
- All things are active … new approach methods for excipient safety.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Navigating the AI Frontier in Toxicology: Trends, Trust, and Transformation.Current environmental health reports · 2025Review
- Substantiating chemical groups for read-across using molecular response profiles.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2025Article
- Prediction of reproductive and developmental toxicity using an attention and gate augmented graph convolutional network.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Incorporating new approach methods (NAMs) data in dose-response assessments: The future is now!Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2025Review
- Article
- Mechanistic read-across comes of age: a comparative appraisal of EFSA 2025 guidance, ECHA's RAAF, and good read-across practice.Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Review
- Integration of QSAR and NAM in the Read-Across Process for an Effective and Relevant Toxicological Assessment.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Development of hybrid models by the integration of the read-across hypothesis with the QSAR framework for the assessment of developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART) tested according to OECD TG 414.Toxicology reports · 2024Article
- Molecular similarity in chemical informatics and predictive toxicity modeling: from quantitative read-across (q-RA) to quantitative read-across structure-activity relationship (q-RASAR) with the application of machine learning.Critical reviews in toxicology · 2024Review
- A Systematic Analysis of Read-Across Adaptations in Testing Proposal Evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Democratizing cheminformatics: interpretable chemical grouping using an automated KNIME workflow.Journal of cheminformatics · 2024Article
- A systematic analysis of read-across within REACH registration dossiers.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2024Article
- Utility of in vivo metabolomics to support read-across for UVCB substances under REACH.Archives of toxicology · 2024Article
11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Grouping of substances and utilizing read-across of data within those groups represents an important data gap filling technique for chemical safety assessments. Categories/analogue groups are typically developed based on structural similarity and, increasingly often, also on mechanistic (biological) similarity. While read-across can play a key role in complying with legislations such as the European REACH regulation, the lack of consensus regarding the extent and type of evidence necessary to support it often hampers its successful application and acceptance by regulatory authorities. Despite a potentially broad user community, expertise is still concentrated across a handful of organizations and individuals. In order to facilitate the effective use of read-across, this document aims to summarize the state-of-the-art, summarizes insights learned from reviewing ECHA published decisions as far as the relative successes/pitfalls surrounding read-across under REACH and compile the relevant activities and guidance documents. Special emphasis is given to the available existing tools and approaches, an analysis of ECHA's published final decisions associated with all levels of compliance checks and testing proposals, the consideration and expression of uncertainty, the use of biological support data and the impact of the ECHA Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) published in 2015.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.