Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33555348›Full record

ReviewToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2021

FutureTox IV Workshop Summary: Predictive Toxicology for Healthy Children.

Thomas B Knudsen, Suzanne Compton Fitzpatrick, K Nadira De Abrew, Linda S Birnbaum, Anne Chappelle, George P Daston, Dana C Dolinoy, Alison Elder, Susan Euling, Elaine M Faustman and 15 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

25 authors.

Thomas B KnudsenU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Suzanne Compton FitzpatrickUS Food and Drug Administration, College Park, Maryland, USA.
K Nadira De AbrewThe Procter and Gamble Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Linda S BirnbaumNational Institute of Environmental Health Science, NIH, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Anne ChappelleChappelle Toxicology Consulting, LLC, Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, USA.
George P DastonThe Procter and Gamble Company, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Dana C DolinoyUniversity of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
Alison ElderUniversity of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA.
Susan EulingU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Children's Health Protection, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Elaine M FaustmanUniversity of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA.
Kristi Pullen FedinickNatural Resources Defense Council, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Jill A FranzosaU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Derik E HaggardU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Laurie HawsToxStrategies, Inc., Austin, Texas, USA.
Nicole C KleinstreuerNational Toxicology Program, NIEHS, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Germaine M Buck LouisGeorge Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA.
Donna L MendrickU.S. Food and Drug Administration, NCTR, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Ruthann RudelSilent Spring Institute, Newton, Massachusetts, USA.
Katerine S SailiU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Thaddeus T SchugNational Institute of Environmental Health Science, NIH, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Robyn L TanguayOregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA.
Alexandra E TurleyUS Food and Drug Administration, College Park, Maryland, USA.
Barbara A WetmoreU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Kimberly W WhiteAmerican Chemistry Council, Washington, District of Columbia, USA.
Todd J ZurlindenU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ORD, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.

Funding

VISUAL INDICES OF NEUROTOXICITYP30ES001247 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER · PI Martha Susiarjo · 1985 to 2026
$42.8M
XENOBIOTIC BIOTRANSFORMATION AND DISPOSITIONP30ES007033 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI Nicole Ann Errett · 1995 to 2026
$42.5M
Strategic Vision & Impact on Environmental HealthP30ES017885 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Dana Dolinoy · 2011 to 2026
$21.3M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES001247NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES007033NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES017885
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

FutureTox IV, a Society of Toxicology Contemporary Concepts in Toxicology workshop, was held in November 2018. Building upon FutureTox I, II, and III, this conference focused on the latest science and technology for in vitro profiling and in silico modeling as it relates to predictive developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART). Publicly available high-throughput screening data sets are now available for broad in vitro profiling of bioactivities across large inventories of chemicals. Coupling this vast amount of mechanistic data with a deeper understanding of molecular embryology and post-natal development lays the groundwork for using new approach methodologies (NAMs) to evaluate chemical toxicity, drug efficacy, and safety assessment for embryo-fetal development. NAM is a term recently adopted in reference to any technology, methodology, approach, or combination thereof that can be used to provide information on chemical hazard and risk assessment to avoid the use of intact animals (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], Strategic plan to promote the development and implementation of alternative test methods within the tsca program, 2018, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-06/documents/epa_alt_strat_plan_6-20-18_clean_final.pdf). There are challenges to implementing NAMs to evaluate chemicals for developmental toxicity compared with adult toxicity. This forum article reviews the 2018 workshop activities, highlighting challenges and opportunities for applying NAMs for adverse pregnancy outcomes (eg, preterm labor, malformations, low birth weight) as well as disorders manifesting postnatally (eg, neurodevelopmental impairment, breast cancer, cardiovascular disease, fertility). DART is an important concern for different regulatory statutes and test guidelines. Leveraging advancements in such approaches and the accompanying efficiencies to detecting potential hazards to human development are the unifying concepts toward implementing NAMs in DART testing. Although use of NAMs for higher level regulatory decision making is still on the horizon, the conference highlighted novel testing platforms and computational models that cover multiple levels of biological organization, with the unique temporal dynamics of embryonic development, and novel approaches for estimating toxicokinetic parameters essential in supporting in vitro to in vivo extrapolation.

Indexed as

Toxicity TestsToxicologyAnimalsChildComputer SimulationFemaleHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansPregnancyRisk AssessmentUnited StatesUnited States Environmental Protection Agencychildren’s environmental healthdevelopmental and reproductive toxicity testinghigh-throughput screeningin silico modelingin vitro profilingnew approach methodologies (NAMs)pediatric health

Identifiers

PMID33555348
PMCPMC8041457

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.