ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2024
A systematic analysis of read-across within REACH registration dossiers.
Article in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Human vs. cells vs. machine: A comparative analysis of toxicological points of departure derived from quantitative read-across (qRAx), in vitro data, and In silico predictions.Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology : RTP · 2026Article
- Article
- Building a compendium of expert driven read-across cases to facilitate an analysis of the contribution that different similarity contexts play in read-across performance.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Development of the toxicity values database, ToxValDB: A curated resource for experimental and derived human health-relevant toxicity data.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
- Can graph similarity metrics be helpful for analogue identification as part of a read-across approach?Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 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
- Article
- Molecular similarity in chemical informatics and predictive toxicity modeling: from quantitative read-across (q-RA) to quantitative read-across structure-activity relationship (q-RASAR) with the application of machine learning.Critical reviews in toxicology · 2024Review
- A Systematic Analysis of Read-Across Adaptations in Testing Proposal Evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Read-across is a well-established data-gap filling technique used within analogue or category approaches. Acceptance remains an issue, mainly due to the difficulties of addressing residual uncertainties associated with a read-across prediction and because assessments are expert-driven. Frameworks to develop, assess and document read-across may help reduce variability in read-across results. Data-driven read-across approaches such as Generalised Read-Across (GenRA) include quantification of uncertainties and performance. GenRA also affords opportunities on how New Approach Method (NAM) data can be systematically incorporated to support the read-across hypothesis. Herein, a systematic investigation of differences in expert-driven read-across with data-driven approaches was pursued in terms of establishing scientific confidence in the use of read-across. A dataset of expert-driven read-across assessments that made use of registration data as disseminated in the public International Uniform Chemical Information Database (IUCLID) (version 6) of Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) Study Results were compiled. A dataset of ~5000 read-across cases pertaining to repeated dose and developmental toxicity was extracted and mapped to content within EPA's Distributed Structure Searchable Toxicity database (DSSTox) to retrieve chemical name and structural identification information. Content could be mapped to ~3600 cases which when filtered for unique cases with curated quantitative structure-activity relationship-ready SMILES resulted in 389 target-source analogue pairs. The similarity between target and the source analogues on the basis of different contexts - from structural similarity using chemical fingerprints to metabolic similarity using predicted metabolic information was evaluated. An attempt was also made to quantify the relative contribution each similarity context played relative to the target-source analogue pairs by deriving a model which predicted known analogue pairs. Finally, point of departure values (PODs) were predicted using the GenRA approach underpinned by data extracted from the EPA's Toxicity Values Database (ToxValDB). The GenRA predicted PODs were compared with those reported within the REACH dossiers themselves. This study offers generalisable insights on how read-across is already applied for regulatory submissions and expectations on the levels of similarity necessary to make decisions.
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.