ArticleArchives of toxicology2020
Setting the stage for next-generation risk assessment with non-animal approaches: the EU-ToxRisk project experience.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed.
- Applicability of NAMs to support a read-across based hazard assessment workflow for systemic toxicity: a conazole case study.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Cell line identity rather than medium composition determines transcriptomic profiles of HepaRG and HuH7 cells cultured in chemically defined or serum-based media: comparison with primary human hepatocytes.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Building trust in the integration of artificial intelligence into chemical risk assessment: findings from the 2024 ECETOC workshop.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Multimodal Cross-Attentive Graph-Based Framework for Predicting In Vivo Endocrine Disruptors.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Chemical Food Safety in Europe Under the Spotlight: Principles, Regulatory Framework and Roadmap for Future Directions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- TOXTRUST: a tool leveraging the Dempster-Shafer Theory for robust integration of NAM results in decision-making considering uncertainty.NAM journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Thresholds of adversity for endocrine disrupting substances: a conceptual case study.Archives of toxicology · 2024Article
- Analysis of health concerns not addressed by REACH for low tonnage chemicals and opportunities for new approach methodology.Archives of toxicology · 2023Article
- Toxicometabolomics as a tool for next generation environmental risk assessment.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023Article
- Collaborative SAR Modeling and Prospective In Vitro Validation of Oxidative Stress Activation in Human HepG2 Cells.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2023Article
- Current status and future challenges of genotoxicity OECD Test Guidelines for nanomaterials: a workshop report.Mutagenesis · 2023Article
- Capturing time-dependent activation of genes and stress-response pathways using transcriptomics in iPSC-derived renal proximal tubule cells.Cell biology and toxicology · 2023Article
- New approach methodologies in human regulatory toxicology - Not if, but how and when!Environment international · 2023Review
- G × E interactions as a basis for toxicological uncertainty.Archives of toxicology · 2023Article
- Modernizing persistence-bioaccumulation-toxicity (PBT) assessment with high throughput animal-free methods.Archives of toxicology · 2023Article
- New Approach Methodologies for the Endocrine Activity Toolbox: Environmental Assessment for Fish and Amphibians.Environmental toxicology and chemistry · 2023Review
- A walk in the PARC: developing and implementing 21st century chemical risk assessment in Europe.Archives of toxicology · 2023Article
- Reply to the opinion paper "The EU chemicals strategy for sustainability: an opportunity to develop new approaches for hazard assessment" by Scholz et al.Archives of 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In 2016, the European Commission launched the EU-ToxRisk research project to develop and promote animal-free approaches in toxicology. The 36 partners of this consortium used in vitro and in silico methods in the context of case studies (CSs). These CSs included both compounds with a highly defined target (e.g. mitochondrial respiratory chain inhibitors) as well as compounds with poorly defined molecular initiation events (e.g. short-chain branched carboxylic acids). The initial project focus was on developing a science-based strategy for read-across (RAx) as an animal-free approach in chemical risk assessment. Moreover, seamless incorporation of new approach method (NAM) data into this process (= NAM-enhanced RAx) was explored. Here, the EU-ToxRisk consortium has collated its scientific and regulatory learnings from this particular project objective. For all CSs, a mechanistic hypothesis (in the form of an adverse outcome pathway) guided the safety evaluation. ADME data were generated from NAMs and used for comprehensive physiological-based kinetic modelling. Quality assurance and data management were optimized in parallel. Scientific and Regulatory Advisory Boards played a vital role in assessing the practical applicability of the new approaches. In a next step, external stakeholders evaluated the usefulness of NAMs in the context of RAx CSs for regulatory acceptance. For instance, the CSs were included in the OECD CS portfolio for the Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment project. Feedback from regulators and other stakeholders was collected at several stages. Future chemical safety science projects can draw from this experience to implement systems toxicology-guided, animal-free next-generation risk assessment.
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.