Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40925984›Full record

ArticleArchives of toxicology2025

Exploring experiences of the regulatory toxicology system: system-level promoters and inhibitors of new approach methodologies.

Angela Bearth, Birgit Kopainsky, Lowenna B Jones, Gunn E Vist, Trine Husøy, Camilla Svendsen, Paul Whaley, Sebastian Hoffmann, Heather M Ames, Gisle Solstad and 14 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evidence-based AI: from trailblazer to trustblazer?Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  4. 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

24 authors.

Angela BearthNorwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. angela.bearth@hfpartners.ch.
Birgit KopainskyNorwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Lowenna B JonesNorwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Gunn E VistNorwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Trine HusøyNorwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Camilla SvendsenNorwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Paul WhaleyNorwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Sebastian HoffmannEvidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration (EBTC), Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Heather M AmesNorwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Gisle SolstadNorwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway.
Denise BlochDepartment of Pesticides Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Aleksandra ČavoškiBirmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Weihsueh A ChiuDepartment of Veterinary Physiology and Pharmacology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA.
Miles DavenportKirby Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Holly G DaviesWashington State Department of Health, Tumwater, WA, USA.
Arianna GiustiCosmetics Europe, Avenue Herrmann-Debroux 40, 1160, Auderghem, Belgium.
Thomas HartungCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Seok KwonDepartment of Pharmacology, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Olivia J OsborneChemical Risk Assessment Team, Science, Evidence and Research Division, Food Standards Agency, Petty France, Westminster, London, SW1H 9EX, UK.
Andrew A RooneyDivision of Translational Toxicology, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, USA.
Christophe RousselleANSES/DAEI-French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health & Safety, 14 rue Pierre et Marie Curie, 94701, Maisons-Alfort Cedex, France.
Jennifer B SassNatural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC, USA.
Fred A WrightDepartments of Statistics and Biological Sciences and Bioinformatics Research Center, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, 2695, USA.
Gro H MathisenNorwegian Scientific Committee for Food and Environment, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway. gro.haarklou.mathisen@vkm.no.ORCID 0000-0003-3824-4898

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The transition from traditional animal-based approaches and assessments to New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) marks a scientific revolution in regulatory toxicology, with the potential of enhancing human and environmental protection. However, implementing the effective use of NAMs in regulatory toxicology has proven to be challenging, and so far, efforts to facilitate this change frequently focus on singular technical, psychological or economic inhibitors. This article takes a system-thinking approach to these challenges, a holistic framework for describing interactive relationships between the components of a system of interest. In this case, the regulatory toxicology system. We do so by analysing and interpreting a very large qualitative data set of experts' observations, collected in a 3-day interactive workshop and three follow-up online workshops with a heterogeneous sample of experts representing major actors from the global regulatory toxicology system. We identified leverage points (where a small change within a system can have a disproportionately large effect) in the six core aspects-infrastructure, processes, culture, technology, goals, and actors-in the regulatory toxicology system to facilitate the effective use of NAMs. Identified systematic leverage points include the need for a functioning incentive structure for effectively discovering, developing, validating and using NAMs within academia, regulation, and industry; and measures that prevent or mitigate unwanted effects of using NAMs that acknowledge clashes between scientific, regulatory, political and social processes. The results serve as a basis for follow-up activities that reflect on the actual effectiveness of these levers and that develop measures for the regulatory toxicology system.

Indexed as

ToxicologyAnimalsHumansRisk AssessmentToxicity TestsChemical risk assessmentNew approach methodologiesNext generation risk assessmentSystems thinking

Identifiers

PMID40925984
PMCPMC12534273

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.