ArticleALTEX2020
Internationalization of read-across as a validated new approach method (NAM) for regulatory toxicology.
Article in ALTEX, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 94 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human vs. cells vs. machine: A comparative analysis of toxicological points of departure derived from quantitative read-across (qRAx), in vitro data, and In silico predictions.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2026Article
- We need less animal research, better animal research, and animal research done for the right reasons.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- Building trust in the integration of artificial intelligence into chemical risk assessment: findings from the 2024 ECETOC workshop.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- All things are active … new approach methods for excipient safety.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive reexamination of the acute toxicity of nitrogen mustards: HN-1, HN-2 and HN-3 as blister agents: application of multi in silico approach.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- Guidance on the use of read-across for chemical safety assessment in food and feed.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Article
- 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
- 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
- Seminar: Functional Exposomics and Mechanisms of Toxicity-Insights from Model Systems and NAMs.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Review
- E-waste: mechanisms of toxicity and safety testing.FEBS open bio · 2024Review
- A Systematic Analysis of Read-Across Adaptations in Testing Proposal Evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Big Question to Developing Solutions: A Decade of Progress in the Development of Aquatic New Approach Methodologies from 2012 to 2022.Environmental toxicology and chemistry · 2024Article
- Article
- Assessing human carcinogenicity risk of agrochemicals without the rodent cancer bioassay.Frontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
- Exploring the effects of experimental parameters and data modeling approaches on in vitro transcriptomic point-of-departure estimates.Toxicology · 2024Article
- Definition of the Neurotoxicity-Associated Metabolic Signature Triggered by Berberine and Other Respiratory Chain Inhibitors.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- New approach methodologies in human regulatory toxicology - Not if, but how and when!Environment international · 2023Review
- A New CSRML Structure-Based Fingerprint Method for Profiling and Categorizing Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS).Chemical research in toxicology · 2023Article
- An End Point-Specific Framework for Read-Across Analog Selection for Human Health Effects.Chemical research in toxicology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
31 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Read-across (RAx) translates available information from well-characterized chemicals to a substance for which there is a toxicological data gap. The OECD is working on case studies to probe general applicability of RAx, and several regulations (e.g., EU-REACH) already allow this procedure to be used to waive new in vivo tests. The decision to prepare a review on the state of the art of RAx as a tool for risk assessment for regulatory purposes was taken during a workshop with international experts in Ranco, Italy in July 2018. Three major issues were identified that need optimization to allow a higher regulatory acceptance rate of the RAx procedure: (i) the definition of similarity of source and target, (ii) the translation of biological/toxicological activity of source to target in the RAx procedure, and (iii) how to deal with issues of ADME that may differ between source and target. The use of new approach methodologies (NAM) was discussed as one of the most important innovations to improve the acceptability of RAx. At present, NAM data may be used to confirm chemical and toxicological similarity. In the future, the use of NAM may be broadened to fully characterize the hazard and toxicokinetic properties of RAx compounds. Concerning available guidance, documents on Good Read-Across Practice (GRAP) and on best practices to perform and evaluate the RAx process were identified. Here, in particular, the RAx guidance, being worked out by the European Commission’s H2020 project EU-ToxRisk together with many external partners with regulatory experience, is given.
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.