Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38115239›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental and molecular mutagenesis2025

Interpretation of in vitro concentration-response data for risk assessment and regulatory decision-making: Report from the 2022 IWGT quantitative analysis expert working group meeting.

Marc A Beal, Guangchao Chen, Kerry L Dearfield, Min Gi, Bhaskar Gollapudi, Robert H Heflich, Katsuyoshi Horibata, Alexandra S Long, David P Lovell, Barbara L Parsons and 5 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental and molecular mutagenesis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Benchmark Response (BMR) Values for In Vivo Mutagenicity Endpoints.Environmental and molecular mutagenesis · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
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

15 authors.

Marc A BealBureau of Chemical Safety, Health Products and Food Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2760-4368
Guangchao ChenCentre for Nutrition, Prevention and Health Services, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Kerry L DearfieldRetired from US Environmental Protection Agency and US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.
Min GiDepartment of Environmental Risk Assessment, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan.
Bhaskar GollapudiToxicology Consultant, Midland, Michigan, USA.
Robert H HeflichNational Center for Toxicological Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, Arkansas, USA.
Katsuyoshi HoribataDivision of Genetics and Mutagenesis, National Institute of Health Sciences, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan.
Alexandra S LongExisting Substances Risk Assessment Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
David P LovellSt George's Medical School, University of London, London, UK.
Barbara L ParsonsNational Center for Toxicological Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, Arkansas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3005-2552
Stefan PfuhlerGlobal Product Stewardship - Human Safety, Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8869-5975
John WillsGenetic Toxicology and Photosafety, GSK Research & Development, Stevenage, UK.
Andreas ZellerPharmaceutical Sciences, pRED Innovation Center Basel, Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3565-6347
George JohnsonSwansea University Medical School, Swansea University, Swansea, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5643-9942
Paul A WhiteEnvironmental Health Science and Research Bureau, Healthy Environments and Consumer Safety Branch, Health Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Quantitative risk assessments of chemicals are routinely performed using in vivo data from rodents; however, there is growing recognition that non-animal approaches can be human-relevant alternatives. There is an urgent need to build confidence in non-animal alternatives given the international support to reduce the use of animals in toxicity testing where possible. In order for scientists and risk assessors to prepare for this paradigm shift in toxicity assessment, standardization and consensus on in vitro testing strategies and data interpretation will need to be established. To address this issue, an Expert Working Group (EWG) of the 8th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) evaluated the utility of quantitative in vitro genotoxicity concentration-response data for risk assessment. The EWG first evaluated available in vitro methodologies and then examined the variability and maximal response of in vitro tests to estimate biologically relevant values for the critical effect sizes considered adverse or unacceptable. Next, the EWG reviewed the approaches and computational models employed to provide human-relevant dose context to in vitro data. Lastly, the EWG evaluated risk assessment applications for which in vitro data are ready for use and applications where further work is required. The EWG concluded that in vitro genotoxicity concentration-response data can be interpreted in a risk assessment context. However, prior to routine use in regulatory settings, further research will be required to address the remaining uncertainties and limitations.

Indexed as

MutagensAnimalsAnimal Testing AlternativesDecision MakingDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansMutagenicity TestsRisk AssessmentMutagensclastogengenetic toxicologymutationnew approach methodologies

Identifiers

PMID38115239
PMCPMC12988033

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.