Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41984091›Full record

ArticleArchives of toxicology2026

A tool to assess the internal validity of toxicokinetic studies.

M Batke, G Damm, H Foth, A Freyberger, J G Hengstler, A Mangerich, H Mielke, F Partosch, T Schupp, A Sonnenburg and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Archives of toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

14 authors.

M Batke *Faculty of Chemistry, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
G DammDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery and Visceral Transplantation, Leipzig University Medical Center, Leipzig, Germany.
H FothInstitute of Environmental Toxicology, University of Halle, Halle/Saale, Germany.
A FreybergerFormerly Bayer AG, Wuppertal, Germany.
J G HengstlerLeibniz Research Centre for Working Environment and Human Factors, Dortmund University, Dortmund, Germany.
A MangerichNutritional Toxicology Group, University of Potsdam, Institute of Nutritional Science, Potsdam, Germany.
H Mielke *Department of Exposure, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
F PartoschRamboll Deutschland GmbH, Essen, Germany.
T SchuppUniversity of Applied Sciences Muenster, Steinfurt, Germany.
A SonnenburgDepartment Pesticides Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, Berlin, Germany.
J Vom BrockeEuropean Chemicals Agency, Helsinki, Finland.
K-M WollinFormerly Public Health Agency of Lower Saxony, Hannover, Germany.
E A AlgharablyCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. engi.algharably@charite.de.ORCID 0000-0002-2402-0693
U Gundert-RemyCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt Universität Zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Toxicological animal studies are essential to risk assessment. The reliability of the studies depends on the extent to which study design, conduct, and analysis have a high internal validity. Several tools exist for assessing the internal validity of human and animal studies, however, a dedicated tool for animal toxicokinetic studies is lacking. We developed a questionnaire to systematically assess toxicokinetic animal studies. The questionnaire consists of seven main domains with questions for which points are given by the assessor multiplied by fixed weighting factors (WF). The scores are then aggregated at both the domain and overall levels and expressed as a percentage of the maximum score. We established four confidence tiers based on the percentage of the achieved score. Experts were able to discriminate studies based on internal validity (overall assessment rating between 37.6% and 86.9%, n = 7 studies). The questionnaire was also a helpful tool for less experienced scientists (master students, postgraduates) helping them to assess the internal validity in a systematic way. By implementing a WF into the calculation and performing the assessment at the domain level, both innovative steps in the assessment process, the transparency of the assessment is increased. In a limited exploratory study, we found that Large Language Models (AI) were able to complete the questionnaire, however, failing to discriminate studies' quality. This newly developed questionnaire provides a transparent, granular, and effective framework for assessing the internal validity of animal toxicokinetic studies, offering reliable discrimination across quality tiers for both experienced and toxicologists in training.

Indexed as

Research DesignToxicity TestsToxicokineticsAnimalsHumansReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesAnimal toxicokineticsInternal validitySystematic reviewToxicokinetic assessment tool

Identifiers

PMID41984091
PMCPMC13309501

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.