SynthesisBirth defects research2022
Identifying the landscape of developmental toxicity new approach methodologies.
Synthesis in Birth defects research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Identifying the landscape of developmental toxicity new approach methodologies.Birth defects research · 2022Pooled it
- A screening strategy for identifying the developmental and reproductive toxicity potential of botanicals.Pharmaceutical biology · 2026Review
- Developmental toxicity: artificial intelligence-powered assessments.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2025Review
- Review
- Community-Engaged Research and the Use of Open Access ToxVal/ToxRef In Vivo Databases and New Approach Methodologies (NAM) to Address Human Health Risks From Environmental Contaminants.Birth defects research · 2024Article
- Reproductive-Toxicity-Related Endpoints inJournal of developmental biology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe dynamics and complexities of in utero fetal development create significant challenges in transitioning from lab animal-centric developmental toxicity testing methods to assessment strategies based on new approach methodologies (NAMs). Nevertheless, considerable progress is being made, stimulated by increased research investments and scientific advances, such as induced pluripotent stem cell-derived models. To help identify developmental toxicity NAMs for toxicity screening and potential funding through the American Chemistry Council's Long-Range Research Initiative, a systematic literature review was conducted to better understand the current landscape of developmental toxicity NAMs.
methodsScoping review tools were used to systematically survey the literature (2010-2021; ~18,000 references identified), results and metadata were then extracted, and a user-friendly interactive dashboard was created.
resultsThe data visualization dashboard, developed using Tableau® software, is provided as a free, open-access web tool. This dashboard enables straightforward interactive queries and visualizations to identify trends and to distinguish and understand areas or NAMs where research has been most, or least focused.
conclusionsHerein, we describe the approach and methods used, summarize the benefits and challenges of applying the systematic-review techniques, and highlight the types of questions and answers for which the dashboard can be used to explore the many different facets of developmental toxicity NAMs.
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.