ReviewComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2021
The role of validation in establishing the scientific credibility of predictive toxicology approaches intended for regulatory application.
Review in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 41 citations in OpenAlex.
- Validating medical digital twins for clinical decision support: beyond predictive accuracy.JAMIA open · 2026Review
- Towards learning and memory risk assessment with human brain organoids: barriers and opportunities.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Review
- Animal-free safety assessment of chemicals: an innovation system perspective.Archives of toxicology · 2025Review
- Overview of Computational Toxicology Methods Applied in Drug and Green Chemical Discovery.Journal of xenobiotics · 2024Review
- Roadblocks confronting widespread dissemination and deployment of Organs on Chips.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Recommendations on fit-for-purpose criteria to establish quality management for microphysiological systems and for monitoring their reproducibility.Stem cell reports · 2024Review
- Recent advances and current challenges of new approach methodologies in developmental and adult neurotoxicity testing.Archives of toxicology · 2024Review
- Chemicals regulation and non-animal methods: displacing the gold standard.Wellcome open research · 2024Article
- Reproducibility and Robustness of a Liver Microphysiological System PhysioMimix LC12 under Varying Culture Conditions and Cell Type Combinations.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- New approach methodologies in human regulatory toxicology - Not if, but how and when!Environment international · 2023Review
- Towards a future regulatory framework for chemicals in the European Union - Chemicals 2.0.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2023Article
- Construction of an In Silico Structural Profiling Tool Facilitating Mechanistically Grounded Classification of Aquatic Toxicants.Environmental science & technology · 2022Article
- A framework for establishing scientific confidence in new approach methodologies.Archives of toxicology · 2022Review
- A framework for chemical safety assessment incorporating new approach methodologies within REACH.Archives of toxicology · 2022Article
- A matter of trust: Learning lessons about causality will make qAOPs credible.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New approaches in toxicology based on in vitro methods and computational modelling offer considerable potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of chemical hazard and risk assessment in a variety of regulatory contexts. However, this presents challenges both for developers and regulatory assessors because often these two communities do not share the same level of confidence in a new approach. To address this challenge, various assessment frameworks have been developed over the past 20 years with the aim of creating harmonised and systematic approaches for evaluating new methods. These frameworks typically focus on specific methodologies and technologies, which has proven useful for establishing the validity and credibility of individual methods. However, given the increasing need to compare methods and combine their use in integrated assessment strategies, the multiplicity of frameworks is arguably becoming a barrier to their acceptance. In this commentary, we explore the concepts of model validity and credibility, and we illustrate how a set of seven credibility factors provides a method-agnostic means of comparing different kinds of predictive toxicology approaches. It is hoped that this will facilitate communication and cross-disciplinarity among method developers and users, with the ultimate aim of increasing the acceptance and use of predictive approaches in toxicology.
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.