ArticleALTEX2025
A systematic analysis of read-across adaptations in testing proposal evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency.
Article in ALTEX, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- NGRA in Cosmetic Safety: Moving From the Frameworks and Case Studies to Wide Adoption.Current opinion in toxicology · 2026Article
- 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
- From Reduction to Replacement: Challenges and Proposed Solutions for Animal-Free Safety Assessment of Hydrocarbon UVCB Substances.NAM journal · 2026Review
- 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
- OrbiTox: a visualization platform for NAMs and read-across exploration of multi-domain data.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Mechanistic read-across comes of age: a comparative appraisal of EFSA 2025 guidance, ECHA's RAAF, and good read-across practice.Frontiers in toxicology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
An essential aspect of the EU’s Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) regulation is the European Chemicals Agency’s (ECHA) evaluation of testing proposals submitted by registrants to address data gaps. Registrants may propose adaptations, such as read-across, to waive standard testing; however, it is widely believed that ECHA often finds justifications for read-across hypotheses inadequate. From 2008 to August 2023, 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, focusing on 17 assessment elements (AEs) from the Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) and testing proposal evaluations (TPE). Each submission was classified as to the AEs relied upon by the registrants and by ECHA. Data was analyzed for patterns and associations. Adaptations were included in 23% (350) of proposals, with analogue (168) and group (136) read-across being most common. Of the 304 read-across hypotheses, 49% were accepted, with group read-across showing significantly higher odds of acceptance. Data analysis examined factors such as tonnage band (Annex), test guidelines, hypothesis AEs, and structural similarities of target and source substances. While decisions were often context-specific, several significant associations influencing acceptance emerged. Overall, this analysis provides a comprehensive 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.