Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40896731›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2025

Refinement of a workflow for human relevance assessment of adverse outcome pathways and associated new approach methodologies.

Annick D van den Brand, Julia J Meerman, Christina H J Veltman, Mirjam Luijten

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Annick D van den BrandCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Julia J Meerman *Centre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Christina H J Veltman *Centre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.
Mirjam LuijtenCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In chemical risk assessment the human relevance of adverse health effects observed in experimental animal studies and the underlying toxicological mechanisms, i.e., adverse outcome pathways is often assumed, unless evidence suggests otherwise. Yet, detailed systematic guidance as to how human relevance of perturbed AOPs should be assessed and which data or information should be considered is lacking. Building on previous work we present a refined workflow for human relevance assessment of AOPs and associated new approach methodologies The updated workflow structurally defines the required information for assessing the human relevance of the AOP by means of biological and empirical considerations. Furthermore, the modified workflow better guides assessment of the relevance of NAMs. This is of importance for the use of NAM data in human health risk assessment. In addition, we suggest an approach for weight of evidence assessment by integrating the different lines of evidence. The refined workflow is now accompanied by developed guidance and templates as well as an expanded toolbox, i.e., a list of information sources, to further facilitate application of the workflow. Finally, remaining issues and challenges are discussed. This work is a next step towards to the ultimate goal of a harmonized, structured and transparent approach for human relevance assessment of AOPs and associated NAMs.

Indexed as

adverse outcome pathwayschemicalshuman health risk assessmenthuman relevance assessmentnew approach methodologiesnext-generation risk assessmenttoxicity pathways

Identifiers

PMID40896731
PMCPMC12392633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.