ArticleRegulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP2024
Evaluating scientific confidence in the concordance of in vitro and in vivo protective points of departure.
Article in Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A tiered next-generation risk assessment framework integrating toxicokinetics and NAM-based toxicodynamics: "proof of concept" case study using pyrethroids.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- Comparative Analysis of Chemical Distribution Models for Quantitative In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation.Toxics · 2025Article
- Incorporating new approach methods (NAMs) data in dose-response assessments: The future is now!Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2025Review
- Advancing quantitative hazard banding using expanded probabilistic reference doses and high-throughput screening data for preliminary hazard assessment.NAM journal · 2025Article
- Sensitivity Analysis of the Inputs for Bioactivity-Exposure Ratio Calculations in a NAM-Based Systemic Safety Toolbox.NAM journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To fulfil the promise of reducing reliance on mammalian in vivo laboratory animal studies, new approach methods (NAMs) need to provide a confident basis for regulatory decision-making. However, previous attempts to develop in vitro NAMs-based points of departure (PODs) have yielded mixed results, with PODs from U.S. EPA's ToxCast, for instance, appearing more conservative (protective) but poorly correlated with traditional in vivo studies. Here, we aimed to address this discordance by reducing the heterogeneity of in vivo PODs, accounting for species differences, and enhancing the biological relevance of in vitro PODs. However, we only found improved in vitro-to-in vivo concordance when combining the use of Bayesian model averaging-based benchmark dose modeling for in vivo PODs, allometric scaling for interspecies adjustments, and human-relevant in vitro assays with multiple induced pluripotent stem cell-derived models. Moreover, the available sample size was only 15 chemicals, and the resulting level of concordance was only fair, with correlation coefficients <0.5 and prediction intervals spanning several orders of magnitude. Overall, while this study suggests several ways to enhance concordance and thereby increase scientific confidence in vitro NAMs-based PODs, it also highlights challenges in their predictive accuracy and precision for use in regulatory decision making.
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.