Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35295212›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2022

Beyond AOPs: A Mechanistic Evaluation of NAMs in DART Testing.

Ramya Rajagopal, Maria T Baltazar, Paul L Carmichael, Matthew P Dent, Julia Head, Hequn Li, Iris Muller, Joe Reynolds, Kritika Sadh, Wendy Simpson and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Advancing systemic toxicity risk assessment: Evaluation of a NAM-based toolbox approach.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  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

13 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ramya RajagopalUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Maria T BaltazarUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Paul L CarmichaelUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Matthew P DentUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Julia HeadUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Hequn LiUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Iris MullerUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Joe ReynoldsUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Kritika SadhUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Wendy SimpsonUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Sandrine SpriggsUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Andrew WhiteUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Predrag KukicUnilever Safety and Environmental Assurance Centre, Colworth Science Park, Sharnbrook, United Kingdom.
Unilever (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) promise to offer a unique opportunity to enable human-relevant safety decisions to be made without the need for animal testing in the context of exposure-driven Next Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA). Protecting human health against the potential effects a chemical may have on embryo-foetal development and/or aspects of reproductive biology using NGRA is particularly challenging. These are not single endpoint or health effects and risk assessments have traditionally relied on data from Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity (DART) tests in animals. There are numerous Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) that can lead to DART, which means defining and developing strict testing strategies for every AOP, to predict apical outcomes, is neither a tenable goal nor a necessity to ensure NAM-based safety assessments are fit-for-purpose. Instead, a pragmatic approach is needed that uses the available knowledge and data to ensure NAM-based exposure-led safety assessments are sufficiently protective. To this end, the mechanistic and biological coverage of existing NAMs for DART were assessed and gaps to be addressed were identified, allowing the development of an approach that relies on generating data relevant to the overall mechanisms involved in human reproduction and embryo-foetal development. Using the knowledge of cellular processes and signalling pathways underlying the key stages in reproduction and development, we have developed a broad outline of endpoints informative of DART. When the existing NAMs were compared against this outline to determine whether they provide comprehensive coverage when integrated in a framework, we found them to generally cover the reproductive and developmental processes underlying the traditionally evaluated apical endpoint studies. The application of this safety assessment framework is illustrated using an exposure-led case study.

Indexed as

DARTmechanistic evaluationNAMsNGRAnon-animal alternatives

Identifiers

PMID35295212
PMCPMC8915803
OpenAlexW4221110298

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.