Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35486138›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2022

Recommendations on dose level selection for repeat dose toxicity studies.

Fiona Sewell, Marco Corvaro, Amanda Andrus, Jonathan Burke, George Daston, Bryan Delaney, Jeanne Domoradzki, Carole Forlini, Maia Louise Green, Thomas Hofmann and 5 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A CpG Epigenetic Switch Reverts PFAS ToxicityAn In Vitro Study.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

15 authors at 13 institutions in 4 countries.

Fiona Sewell *National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research (NC3Rs), Gibbs Building, 215 Euston Road, London, NW1 2BE, UK. fiona.sewell@nc3rs.org.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5589-9453
Marco Corvaro *Corteva Agriscience Italia S.R.L., Rome, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8397-2299
Amanda AndrusThe Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI, USA.
Jonathan BurkeReckitt, Hull, UK.
George DastonThe Procter and Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH, USA.
Bryan DelaneyFirmenich, Plainsboro, NJ, USA.
Jeanne DomoradzkiCorteva Agriscience, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
Carole ForliniArkema, Colombes, France.
Maia Louise GreenExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences Inc., Annandale, NJ, USA.
Thomas HofmannBASF SE, Ludwigshafen, Germany.
Sven JäckelMerck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.
Moung Sook LeeClariant, Sulzbach am Taunus, Germany.
Michael TemerowskiBayer Crop Sciences, Mannheim, Germany.
Paul WhalleySyngenta Ltd., Bracknell, UK.
Richard LewisSyngenta Ltd., Bracknell, UK.
Syngenta (United Kingdom) · GBArkema (France) · FRBASF (Germany) · DEBayer (Germany) · DEClariant (Germany) · DECorteva (United States) · USDow Chemical (United States) · USExxonMobil (United States) · USFirmenich (United States) · USMerck (Germany) · DENational Centre for the Replacement Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research · GBProcter & Gamble (United States) · USReckitt Benckiser (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Prior to registering and marketing any new pharmaceutical, (agro)chemical or food ingredient product manufacturers must, by law, generate data to ensure human safety. Safety testing requirements vary depending on sector, but generally repeat-dose testing in animals form the basis for human health risk assessments. Dose level selection is an important consideration when designing such studies, to ensure that exposure levels that lead to relevant hazards are identified. Advice on dose level selection is provided in test guidelines and allied guidance documents, but it is not well harmonised, particularly for selection of the highest dose tested. This paper further builds on concepts developed in a technical report by the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) which recommends pragmatic approaches to dose selection considering regulatory requirements, animal welfare and state of the art scientific approaches. Industry sectors have differing degrees of freedom to operate regarding dose level selection, depending on the purpose of the studies and the regulatory requirements/legislation, and this is reflected in the overall recommended approaches. An understanding of systemic exposure should be utilised where possible (e.g., through toxicokinetic approaches) and used together with apical endpoints from existing toxicity studies to guide more appropriate dose level selection. The highest dose should be limited to a reasonable level, causing minimal but evident toxicity to the test animals without significantly compromising their well-being. As the science of predictive human exposure further develops and matures, this will provide exciting and novel opportunities for more human-relevant approaches to dose level selection.

Indexed as

EcotoxicologyToxicity TestsAnimalsRisk Assessment3RsDose selectionExposureToxicokinetics

Identifiers

PMID35486138
PMCPMC9151511
OpenAlexW4225123838

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.