ArticleJournal of applied toxicology : JAT2024
The inter-laboratory validation study of EpiSensA for predicting skin sensitization potential.
Article in Journal of applied toxicology : JAT, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors at 10 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
The Epidermal Sensitization Assay (EpiSensA) is a reconstructed human epidermis (RhE)-based gene expression assay for predicting the skin sensitization potential of chemicals. Since the RhE model is covered by a stratified stratum corneum, various kinds of test chemicals, including lipophilic ones and pre-/pro-haptens, can be tested with a route of exposure akin to an in vivo assay and human exposure. This article presents the results of a formally managed validation study of the EpiSensA that was carried out by three participating laboratories. The purpose of this validation study was to assess transferability of the EpiSensA to new laboratories along with its within- (WLR) and between-laboratory reproducibility (BLR). The validation study was organized into two independent stages. As demonstrated during the first stage, where three sensitizers and one non-sensitizer were correctly predicted by all participating laboratories, the EpiSensA was successfully transferred to all three participating laboratories. For Phase I of the second stage, each participating laboratory performed three experiments with an identical set of 15 coded test chemicals resulting in WLR of 93.3%, 93.3%, and 86.7%, respectively. Furthermore, when the results from the 15 test chemicals were combined with those of the additional 12 chemicals tested in Phase II of the second stage, the BLR for 27 test chemicals was 88.9%. Moreover, the predictive capacity among the three laboratories showed 92.6% sensitivity, 63.0% specificity, 82.7% accuracy, and 77.8% balanced accuracy based on murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) results. Overall, this validation study concluded that EpiSensA is easily transferable and sufficiently robust for assessing the skin sensitization potential of chemicals.
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.