ArticleToxics2025
Comparative Analysis of Chemical Distribution Models for Quantitative In Vitro to In Vivo Extrapolation.
Article in Toxics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chemical Distribution Kinetics of Five Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in a Microphysiological System.Toxics · 2026Article
- Quantitative estimates of inter-individual variability for new approach methodologies-based systemic safety toolbox using a population-based human in vitro model.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2026Article
- "The Dose Makes the Poison": Relevance of Paracelsus's Principle for Modern Chemical Hazard Assessment with New Approach Methodologies.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Extrapolation steps in quantitativeCurrent research in toxicology · 2026Review
- Sensitivity Analysis of the Inputs for Bioactivity-Exposure Ratio Calculations in a NAM-Based Systemic Safety Toolbox.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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (QIVIVE) utilizes in vitro data to predict in vivo toxicity. However, there may be differences between reported nominal concentrations and the biologically effective free concentrations in media or cells. This study evaluated the performance of four in vitro mass balance models for predicting free media or cellular concentrations. Comparing model predictions to experimentally measured values for a wide range of chemicals and test systems, we found that predictions of media concentrations were more accurate than those for cells, and that the Armitage model had slightly better performance overall. Through sensitivity analyses, we found that chemical property-related parameters were most influential for media predictions, while cell-related parameters were also important for cellular predictions. Assessing the impact of these models on QIVIVE accuracy for a small dataset of 15 chemicals with both in vitro and regulatory in vivo points-of-departure, we found that incorporating in vitro and in vivo bioavailability resulted in at best modest improvements to in vitro-in vivo concordance. Based on these results, we conclude that a reasonable first-line approach for incorporating in vitro bioavailability into QIVIVE would be to use the Armitage model to predict media concentrations, while prioritizing accurate chemical property data as input parameters.
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.