ReviewArchives of toxicology2025
Animal-free safety assessment of chemicals: an innovation system perspective.
Review in Archives of toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- ToxiGuard: an AOP-guided mechanistically interpretable framework for multi-organ toxicity prediction.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Cell line identity rather than medium composition determines transcriptomic profiles of HepaRG and HuH7 cells cultured in chemically defined or serum-based media: comparison with primary human hepatocytes.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Mapping the ethical and sustainable transition in toxicology: a bibliometric analysis and a review of new approach methodologies.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- Application of in vitro pulmonary models for hazard screening of silica particles.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- Guidance on minimum information requirements (MIR) from designing to reporting human biomonitoring (HBM).Environment international · 2025Article
- Article
- CHIASMA: Advancing chemicals and materials safety and sustainability assessments through innovative integration of in vitro and in silico (new approach) methodologies.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Pursuing societal impact in research projects on NAM development: An analysis of routes to impact.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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This perspective paper, which is the result of a collaborative effort between toxicologists and scholars in innovation and transition studies, presents a heuristic framework based on innovation system literature for understanding and appraising mission achievement to animal-free chemical safety assessment using New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). While scientific and technical challenges in this area are relatively well known, the recent establishment of missions and roadmaps to accelerate the acceptance and effective use of NAMs for chemical safety assessment raises new questions about how we can grasp the systemic nature of all changes needed in this transition. This includes recognising broader societal, institutional, and regulatory shifts necessary for NAM acceptance and uptake. Our paper discusses how the innovation system approach offers insights into key processes and associated activities that include as well as transcend the technical and scientific realm, and can help to accelerate acceptance and uptake of NAMs. Based on these insights, we present a comprehensive framework that, next to scientific and technological developments, recognises the need for coordinated efforts in areas like education, training, funding, policy-making, and public engagement to promote the acceptance and uptake of NAMs. Our framework can be used to perform structural and functional analyses of the innovation system of NAMs and animal-free safety assessment and as such provides handholds to track progress and organise collective efforts of actors to make sure we are moving in the right direction.
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.