ArticleArchives of toxicology2025
Exploring experiences of the regulatory toxicology system: system-level promoters and inhibitors of new approach methodologies.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- NGRA in Cosmetic Safety: Moving From the Frameworks and Case Studies to Wide Adoption.Current opinion in toxicology · 2026Article
- Modelling the regulatory toxicology system to promote the effective use of new approach methodologies: a system thinking approach.NAM journal · 2026Article
- Evidence-based AI: from trailblazer to trustblazer?Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Preparing for CHANGE: How systems thinking supports an effective transition from animal studies to NAMs.NAM journal · 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
24 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.