ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
A Systematic Analysis of Read-Across Adaptations in Testing Proposal Evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An important element of the European Union's "Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals" (REACH) regulation is the evaluation by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of testing proposals submitted by the registrants to address data gaps in standard REACH information requirements. The registrants may propose adaptations, and ECHA evaluates the reasoning and issues a written decision. Read-across is a common adaptation type, yet it is widely assumed that ECHA often does not agree that the justifications are adequate to waive standard testing requirements. From 2008 to August 2023, a total of 2,630 Testing Proposals were submitted to ECHA; of these, 1,538 had published decisions that were systematically evaluated in this study. Each document was manually reviewed, and information extracted for further analyses. Read-across hypotheses were standardized into 17 assessment elements (AEs); each submission was classified as to the AEs relied upon by the registrants and by ECHA. Data was analyzed for patterns and associations. Testing Proposal Evaluations (TPEs) with adaptations comprised 23% (353) of the total; analogue (168) or group (136) read-across adaptations were most common. Of 304 read-across-containing TPEs, 49% were accepted; the odds of acceptance were significantly greater for group read-across submissions. The data was analyzed by Annex (i.e., tonnage), test guideline study, read-across hypothesis AEs, as well as target and source substance types and their structural similarity. While most ECHA decisions with both positive and negative decisions on whether the proposed read-across was adequate were context-specific, a number of significant associations were identified that influence the odds of acceptance. Overall, this analysis provides an unbiased overview of 15 years of experience with testing proposal-specific read-across adaptations by both registrants and ECHA. These data will inform future submissions as they identify most critical AEs to increase the odds of read-across acceptance.
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.