Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38343152›Full record

ArticleBirth defects research2024

HESI workshop summary: Interpretation of developmental and reproductive toxicity endpoints and the impact on data interpretation of adverse events.

M L Green, A Kluever, Connie Chen, S Dobreniecki, Wendy Halpern, Bethany Hannas, Alan Hoberman, M E McNerney, S Mitchell-Ryan, T J Shafer and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Birth defects research, 2024. 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. Article
  2. 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

12 authors.

M L GreenHurley Consulting Associates, Ltd., Summit, New Jersey, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8397-2299
A KlueverOffice of Environmental Management, Department of Energy, Germantown, Maryland, USA.
Connie ChenHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
S DobrenieckiU.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs and Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA.
Wendy HalpernGenentech, A Member of the Roche Group, South San Francisco, California, USA.
Bethany HannasEli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.
Alan HobermanCharles River Laboratories, Inc., Horsham, Pennsylvania, USA.
M E McNerneyU.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Office of New Drugs, Office of Rare Diseases, Pediatrics, Urologic and Reproductive Medicine, Division of Pharmacology-Toxicology for Rare Diseases, Pediatrics, Urologic and Reproductive Medicine/Specialty Medicine, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
S Mitchell-RyanHealth and Environmental Sciences Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
T J ShaferBiomolecular and Computational Toxicology Division, Center for Computational Toxicology and Exposure, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
Steven Van CruchtenComparative Perinatal Development, University of Antwerp, Antwerp, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-3144-1840
Tacey WhiteTacey White Toxicology Consultant, LLC, Glenside, Pennsylvania, USA.

Funding

Health and Environmental Sciences InstituteIntramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Health and Environmental Sciences Institute Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology (HESI-DART) group held a hybrid in-person and virtual workshop in Washington, DC, in 2022. The workshop was entitled, "Interpretation of DART in Regulatory Contexts and Frameworks." There were 154 participants (37 in person and 117 virtual) across 9 countries. The purpose of the workshop was to capture key consensus approaches used to assess DART risks associated with chemical product exposure when a nonclinical finding is identified. The decision-making process for determining whether a DART endpoint is considered adverse is critical because the outcome may have downstream implications (e.g., increased animal usage, modifications to reproductive classification and pregnancy labeling, impact on enrollment in clinical trials and value chains). The workshop included a series of webinar modules to train and engage in discussions with federal and international regulators, clinicians, academic investigators, nongovernmental organizations, contract research organization scientists, and private sector scientists on the best practices and principles of interpreting DART and new approach methodologies in the context of regulatory requirements and processes. Despite the differences in regulatory frameworks between the chemical and pharmaceutical sectors, the same foundational principles for data interpretation should be applied. The discussions led to the categorization of principles, which offer guidance for the systematic interpretation of data. Step 1 entails identifying any hazard by closely analyzing the data at the study endpoint level, while Step 2 involves assessing risk using weight of evidence. These guiding principles were derived from the collective outcomes of the workshop deliberations.

Indexed as

ReproductionAnimalsFemaleHumansPregnancyRisk Assessmentadverse eventdevelopmental and reproductive toxicologydevelopmental neurotoxicityhazard identificationnew approach methodologiesrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID38343152
PMCPMC11541376

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.