ArticleCutaneous and ocular toxicology2023
Further optimisation of a macromolecular ocular irritation test (OptiSafe
Article in Cutaneous and ocular toxicology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Washing with buffered vitamin C after corrosive chemical (sodium hypochlorite) exposure reduces ocular depth of injury.Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA · 2025Article
- Evaluation of a New In Chemico Skin Corrosion Test.Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA · 2024Article
- Expansion of the application domain of a macromolecular ocular irritation test (OptiSafe™).Toxicology in vitro : an international journal published in association with BIBRA · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeOptiSafe MATERIALS AND
methodsThe OS test measures chemically induced damage to macromolecules and relates these measured values to ocular irritancy. To improve the performance of OS, we made updates to the material to be tested physiochemical handling procedures, prediction model, and test method to include tear-level concentrations of ascorbic acid. We then retested the 78 chemicals from the prior OS-coded validation study in triplicate and compared the accuracy of the 'nonirritant versus irritant' prediction for the further optimized method with the prior results.
resultsWe report that for the detection of 'nonirritant' versus 'irritant' (GHS NC versus categories 2B/A and 1) test substances, the further optimized OS test with ascorbic acid compared with the original version has a FP rate that is reduced from 40.0 to 22.2%, the false-negative (FN) rate remains at 0.0%, and the accuracy improved from 80.3% to 89.2%.
conclusionA comparison to OECD-adopted tests demonstrates that the further optimized OS test, like the original method, has a higher accuracy and lower FN rate for the detection of 'nonirritants' versus 'irritants' (GHS Category NC versus 2B/A and 1) than the other eye irritation tests (BCOP, EpiOcular
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.