ArticleALTEX2023
Technical framework for enabling high quality measurements in new approach methodologies (NAMs).
Article in ALTEX, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- The way forward for assessing the human health safety of cosmetics in the EU: Proceedings of Workshop 2.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Organs-on-Chips in Drug Development: Engineering Foundations, Artificial Intelligence, and Clinical Translation.Biosensors · 2026Review
- Evaluation of sources of variability in a nitric oxide screening assay for engineered nanomaterials.Nanomedicine : nanotechnology, biology, and medicine · 2026Article
- Article
- New approach methodologies (NAMs) for theFrontiers in toxicology · 2024Review
- Current Perspectives in Antiviral Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- Parenteral Lipid-Based Nanoparticles for CNS Disorders: Integrating Various Facets of Preclinical Evaluation towards More Effective Clinical Translation.Pharmaceutics · 2023Review
- A framework for establishing scientific confidence in new approach methodologies.Archives of toxicology · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
New approach methodologies (NAMs) are in vitro, in chemico, and in silico or computational approaches that can potentially be used to reduce animal testing. For NAMs that require laboratory experiments, it is critical that they provide consistent and reliable results. While guidance has been provided on improving the reproducibility of NAMs that require laboratory experiments, there is not yet an overarching technical framework that details how to add measurement quality features into a protocol. In this manuscript, we discuss such a framework and provide a step-by-step process describing how to refine a protocol using basic quality tools. The steps in this framework include 1) conceptual analysis of sources of technical variability in the assay, 2) within-laboratory evaluation of assay performance, 3) statistical data analysis, and 4) determination of method transferability (if needed). While each of these steps has discrete components, they are all inter-related, and insights from any step can influence the others. Following the steps in this framework can help reveal the advantages and limitations of different choices during the design of an assay such as which in-process control measurements to include and how many replicates to use for each control measurement and for each test substance. Overall, the use of this technical framework can support optimizing NAM reproducibility, thereby supporting meeting research and regulatory needs.
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.