ArticleBirth defects research2018
Rethinking developmental toxicity testing: Evolution or revolution?
Article in Birth defects research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Identifying the landscape of developmental toxicity new approach methodologies.Birth defects research · 2022Pooled it
- A Systematic Review to Compare Chemical Hazard Predictions of the Zebrafish Embryotoxicity Test With Mammalian Prenatal Developmental Toxicity.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2021Pooled it
- Profiling assay performance in the DevTox germ layer reporter platform.Current research in toxicology · 2025Article
- Pluripotent stem cells for target organ developmental toxicity testing.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2024Review
- Revolutionizing adjuvant development: harnessing AI for next-generation cancer vaccines.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Review
- Article
- Modeling Human Gonad Development in Organoids.Tissue engineering and regenerative medicine · 2022Article
- Human-Based New Approach Methodologies in Developmental Toxicity Testing: A Step Ahead from the State of the Art with a Feto-Placental Organ-on-Chip Platform.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Toward better assessments of developmental toxicity using stem cell-based in vitro embryogenesis models.Birth defects research · 2022Review
- The DevTox Germ Layer Reporter Platform: An Assay Adaptation of the Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Test.Toxics · 2022Article
- Pluripotent stem cell assays: Modalities and applications for predictive developmental toxicity.Current research in toxicology · 2022Article
- Use of new approach methodologies (NAMs) to meet regulatory requirements for the assessment of tobacco and other nicotine-containing products.Frontiers in toxicology · 2022Article
- Dictyostelium discoideum: An Alternative Nonanimal Model for Developmental Toxicity Testing.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2021Article
- Single-cell profiling for advancing birth defects research and prevention.Birth defects research · 2021Review
- FutureTox IV Workshop Summary: Predictive Toxicology for Healthy Children.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2021Review
- Next Generation Reproductive and Developmental Toxicology: Crosstalk Into the Future.Frontiers in toxicology · 2021Article
- An ontology for developmental processes and toxicities of neural tube closure.Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) · 2021Article
- Retinoid signaling in skeletal development: Scoping the system for predictive toxicology.Reproductive toxicology (Elmsford, N.Y.) · 2021Review
- Computational Biology andCurrent opinion in toxicology · 2020Article
- Use of smoking cessation pharmacotherapies during pregnancy is not associated with increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes: a population-based cohort study.BMC medicine · 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
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCurrent developmental toxicity testing adheres largely to protocols suggested in 1966 involving the administration of test compound to pregnant laboratory animals. After more than 50 years of embryo-fetal development testing, are we ready to consider a different approach to human developmental toxicity testing?
methodsA workshop was held under the auspices of the Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology Technical Committee of the ILSI Health and Environmental Sciences Institute to consider how we might design developmental toxicity testing if we started over with 21st century knowledge and techniques (revolution). We first consider what changes to the current protocols might be recommended to make them more predictive for human risk (evolution).
resultsThe evolutionary approach includes modifications of existing protocols and can include humanized models, disease models, more accurate assessment and testing of metabolites, and informed approaches to dose selection. The revolution could start with hypothesis-driven testing where we take what we know about a compound or close analog and answer specific questions using targeted experimental techniques rather than a one-protocol-fits-all approach. Central to the idea of hypothesis-driven testing is the concept that testing can be done at the level of mode of action. It might be feasible to identify a small number of key events at a molecular or cellular level that predict an adverse outcome and for which testing could be performed in vitro or in silico or, rarely, using limited in vivo models. Techniques for evaluating these key events exist today or are in development. DISCUSSION: Opportunities exist for refining and then replacing current developmental toxicity testing protocols using techniques that have already been developed or are within reach.
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.