Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29447839›Full record

ArticleToxicology and applied pharmacology2018

Consensus statement on the need for innovation, transition and implementation of developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) testing for regulatory purposes.

Ellen Fritsche, Philippe Grandjean, Kevin M Crofton, Michael Aschner, Alan Goldberg, Tuula Heinonen, Ellen V S Hessel, Helena T Hogberg, Susanne Hougaard Bennekou, Pamela J Lein and 13 more

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Toxicology and applied pharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

23 authors.

Ellen FritscheIUF - Leibniz Research Institute for Environmental Medicine, Duesseldorf, Germany.
Philippe GrandjeanUniversity of Southern Denmark, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, USA.
Kevin M CroftonNeurotoxicologist, Durham, NC, USA.
Michael AschnerAlbert Einstein College of Medicine Bronx, New York, USA.
Alan GoldbergBloomberg School of Public Health, Founding Director (Emeritus) of Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA; Global Food Ethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
Tuula HeinonenFinnish Centre for Alternative Methods (FICAM), University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland.
Ellen V S HesselNational Institute for Public Health and the Environment, RIVM Center for Health Protection, Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Helena T HogbergCentre for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, USA.
Susanne Hougaard BennekouThe Danish Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Copenhagen, Denmark.
Pamela J LeinDepartment of Molecular Biosciences, School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California Davis, Davis, USA.
Marcel LeistCAAT - Centre for Alternatives to Animal Testing, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
William R MundyNeurotoxicologist, Durham, USA.
Martin PaparellaAustrian National Coordinator of Testing Methods, Austria.
Aldert H PiersmaRIVM Center for Health Protection, Bilthoven and Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Magdalini SachanaOrganisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Paris, France.
Gabriele SchmuckBayer, Wuppertal, Germany.
Roland SoleckiFederal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Andrea TerronEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy.
Florianne Monnet-TschudiDepartment of Physiology, University of Lausanne and SCAHT, Switzerland.
Martin F WilksSCAHT - Swiss Centre for Applied Human Toxicology, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Hilda WittersVITO, Flemish Institute for Technological Research, Unit Environmental Risk and Health, Belgium.
Marie-Gabrielle ZurichDepartment of Physiology, University of Lausanne and SCAHT, Switzerland.
Anna Bal-PriceEuropean Commission -DG Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy. Electronic address: anna.price@ec.europa.eu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This consensus statement voices the agreement of scientific stakeholders from regulatory agencies, academia and industry that a new framework needs adopting for assessment of chemicals with the potential to disrupt brain development. An increased prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders in children has been observed that cannot solely be explained by genetics and recently pre- and postnatal exposure to environmental chemicals has been suspected as a causal factor. There is only very limited information on neurodevelopmental toxicity, leaving thousands of chemicals, that are present in the environment, with high uncertainty concerning their developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) potential. Closing this data gap with the current test guideline approach is not feasible, because the in vivo bioassays are far too resource-intensive concerning time, money and number of animals. A variety of in vitro methods are now available, that have the potential to close this data gap by permitting mode-of-action-based DNT testing employing human stem cells-derived neuronal/glial models. In vitro DNT data together with in silico approaches will in the future allow development of predictive models for DNT effects. The ultimate application goals of these new approach methods for DNT testing are their usage for different regulatory purposes.

Indexed as

Age FactorsAnimalsAnimal Testing AlternativesBrainConsensusDiffusion of InnovationHumansNeuronsNeurotoxicity SyndromesPolicy MakingReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentStakeholder ParticipationToxicity TestsToxicologyDevelopmental neurotoxicityIn vitro testingRegulatory purposes

Identifiers

PMID29447839
PMCPMC6097873

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.