ArticleILAR journal2016
Opportunities to Apply the 3Rs in Safety Assessment Programs.
Article in ILAR journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence for Regulatory Evidence: A Systematic Document Analysis of European Medicines Agency Regulatory Advice and Public Reports.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Incorporating farm animal models for the study of neuropsychiatric diseases: Expansion of the possibilities.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Review
- The OASIS Consortium: integrating multi-omics technologies to transform chemical safety assessment.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025Article
- CSL-Tox: an open-source analytical framework for the comparison of short-term and long-term toxicity end points and assessing the need of chronic studies in drug development.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Structure-Activity Relationship of Graphene-Based Materials: Impact of the Surface Chemistry, Surface Specific Area and Lateral Size on Their In Vitro Toxicity.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Pharmacokinetics in Zebrafish Embryos (ZFE) Following Immersion and Intrayolk Administration: A Fluorescence-Based Analysis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Harnessing the power of novel animal-free test methods for the development of COVID-19 drugs and vaccines.Archives of toxicology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Before a potential new medicine can be administered to humans it is essential that its safety is adequately assessed. Safety assessment in animals forms an integral part of this process, from early drug discovery and initial candidate selection to the program of recommended regulatory tests in animals. The 3Rs (replacement, reduction, and refinement of animals in research) are integrated in the current regulatory requirements and expectations and, in the EU, provide a legal and ethical framework for in vivo research to ensure the scientific objectives are met whilst minimizing animal use and maintaining high animal welfare standards. Though the regulations are designed to uncover potential risks, they are intended to be flexible, so that the most appropriate approach can be taken for an individual product. This article outlines current and future opportunities to apply the 3Rs in safety assessment programs for pharmaceuticals, and the potential (scientific, financial, and ethical) benefits to the industry, across the drug discovery and development process. For example, improvements to, or the development of, novel, early screens (e.g., in vitro, in silico, or nonmammalian screens) designed to identify compounds with undesirable characteristics earlier in development have the potential to reduce late-stage attrition by improving the selection of compounds that require regulatory testing in animals. Opportunities also exist within the current regulatory framework to simultaneously reduce and/or refine animal use and improve scientific outcomes through improvements to technical procedures and/or adjustments to study designs. It is important that approaches to safety assessment are continuously reviewed and challenged to ensure they are science-driven and predictive of relevant effects in humans.
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.