ArticleArchives of toxicology2025
Non-invasive in vitro NAM for the detection of reversible and irreversible eye damage after chemical exposure for GHS classification purposes (ImAi).
Article 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Advances in Cytotoxicity Testing: From In Vitro Assays to In Silico Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The potential risk of chemicals to the human eye is assessed by adopted test guidelines (TGs) for regulatory purposes to ensure consumer safety. Over the past decade, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has approved new approach methodologies (NAMs) to predict chemical eye damage. However, existing NAMs remain associated with limitations: First, no full replacement of the in vivo Draize eye test due to limited predictability of severe/mild damage was reached. Second, the existing NAMs do not allow reliable differentiation between reversible and irreversible eye damage. Especially the prediction of tissue recovery remains challenging in vitro. Existing in vitro NAMs are based on destructive analysis with no consideration of tissue recovery. In this study, we developed a standalone eye-irritation test method based on non-invasive impedance spectroscopy (ImAi) to discriminate between damaging and irritating chemicals. Tissue effects were analyzed via transepithelial electrical resistance (TEER) measurements of human in vitro epithelial models over 14 days. The TEER was performed using a developed impedance spectrometer. For development of the EIT, a chemical reference list of 329 chemicals was compiled. The applicability of the ImAi-test was exemplified by the discrimination of Cat. 1 vs. Cat. 2 for 23 reference chemicals. Correct classification was achieved for 90.9% of Cat. 1 and 83.3% of Cat. 2 chemicals. Our non-invasive in vitro test overcomes the limitations of Cat. 2 classification of the existing in vitro methods and provides for the first time a non-animal test method that can fully replace the Draize eye test.
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.