ReviewToxicologic pathology2025
Virtual Control Groups in Non-clinical Toxicity Studies: Impacts on Toxicologic Clinical Pathology Data Interpretation.
Review in Toxicologic pathology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- GanCtrl: a generative AI approach to derive study-aligned synthetic controls for reducing concurrent control animal use.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026Article
- Replicability in EFDT Studies: Implications of Context Dependence for Virtual Control Groups (VCGs).Birth defects research · 2026Article
- A practical approach for regulatory acceptance of virtual control groups: vehicle pooling and biological relevance assessment.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One of the emerging concepts on the reduction of animal use in non-clinical studies is the use of virtual control group (VCG) to replace concurrent control group (CCG). The VCG involves the generation of a control data from historical control data to match a specific study design. This review focuses on two recently published proof-of-concept (POC) studies conducted in rats. One major issue that was consistently seen across these POC studies was the non-reproducibility of some quantitative endpoints between the CCG and the VCG, with clinical pathology parameters being the most affected. The inconsistencies observed with the clinical pathology parameters when using VCGs may lead to: (1) misconception about the accuracy and sensitivity of traditional clinical pathology biomarkers and its implications on safety monitoring in the clinic; (2) inability to correctly identify and characterize organ dysfunctions; (3) interference with the weight-of-evidence approach used in identifying hazards in toxicologic clinical pathology and toxicology studies at large; and (4) wrong interpretations and data reproducibility issues. Other alternatives to reduce animal use in toxicology studies are also discussed including blood microsampling for toxicokinetics, scientifically justified use of recovery animals, and appropriate use and continuous investments in new alternative methods.
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.