ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2025
Refinement of a workflow for human relevance assessment of adverse outcome pathways and associated new approach methodologies.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Epigenetic vulnerability in endocrine disruption: bridging mechanisms, models, and environmental inequities.Clinical epigenetics · 2026Review
- Bridging the life-course exposome approach with a life-cycle perspective in safe and sustainable by design (SSbD) for chemical risk.Human genomics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.