Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37684321›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

CSL-Tox: an open-source analytical framework for the comparison of short-term and long-term toxicity end points and assessing the need of chronic studies in drug development.

Doha Naga, Smaragda Dimitrakopoulou, Sonia Roberts, Elisabeth Husar, Susanne Mohr, Helen Booler, Eunice Musvasva

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

7 authors.

Doha Naga *Roche Pharma Research & Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland. dohanaga@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1679-5333
Smaragda Dimitrakopoulou *Roche Pharma Research & Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
Sonia RobertsRoche Pharma Research & Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
Elisabeth HusarRoche Pharma Research & Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
Susanne MohrRoche Pharma Research & Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
Helen BoolerRoche Pharma Research & Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland.
Eunice MusvasvaRoche Pharma Research & Early Development, Roche Innovation Center Basel, F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd., Basel, Switzerland. eunice.musvasva@roche.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In-vivo toxicity assessment is an important step prior to clinical development and is still the main source of data for overall risk assessment of a new molecular entity (NCE). All in-vivo studies are performed according to regulatory requirements and many efforts have been exerted to minimize these studies in accordance with the (Replacement, Reduction and Refinement) 3Rs principle. Many aspects of in-vivo toxicology packages can be optimized to reduce animal use, including the number of studies performed as well as study durations, which is the main focus of this analysis. We performed a statistical comparison of adverse findings observed in 116 short-term versus 78 long-term in-house or in-house sponsored Contract Research Organizations (CRO) studies, in order to explore the possibility of using only short-term studies as a prediction tool for the longer-term effects. All the data analyzed in this study was manually extracted from the toxicology reports (in PDF formats) to construct the dataset. Annotation of treatment related findings was one of the challenges faced during this work. A specific focus was therefore put on the summary and conclusion sections of the reports since they contain expert assessments on whether the findings were considered adverse or were attributed to other reasons. Our analysis showed a general good concordance between short-term and long-term toxicity findings for large molecules and the majority of small molecules. Less concordance was seen for certain body organs, which can be named as "target organ systems' findings". While this work supports the minimization of long-term studies, a larger-scale effort would be needed to provide more evidence. We therefore present the steps performed in this study as an open-source R workflow for the Comparison of Short-term and Long-term Toxicity studies (CSL-Tox). The dataset used in the work is provided to allow researchers to reproduce such analysis, re-evaluate the statistical tools used and promote large-scale application of this study. Important aspects of animal research reproducibility are highlighted in this work, specifically, the necessity of a reproducible adverse effects reporting system and utilization of the controlled terminologies in-vivo toxicology reports and finally the importance of open-source analytical workflows that can be assessed by other scientists in the field of preclinical toxicology.

Indexed as

Animal ExperimentationDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAnimalsDrug DevelopmentReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID37684321
PMCPMC10491674

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.