Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42129488›Full record

ReviewLab animal2026

What's in a NAM?

Arti Ahluwalia, Babette Fletemeyer, Giuseppe Chirico, Alisa Elezovic, Winfried Neuhaus, Adrian J Smith, Jeffrey J Bajramovic, Doris Wilflingseder

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Lab animal, 2026. 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

8 authors.

Arti AhluwaliaDepartment of Information Engineering, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy. arti.ahluwalia@unipi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5370-6750
Babette FletemeyerIgnaz Semmelweis Institute, Interuniversity Institute for Infection Research, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Giuseppe ChiricoCentro 3R, Pisa, Italy.
Alisa ElezovicUniversity of Sarajevo, Faculty of Pharmacy, Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0559-1463
Winfried NeuhausEUSAAT, Austrian Institute of Technology, Vienna, Austria.
Adrian J SmithNorecopa, Norwegian Veterinary Institute, As, Norway.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8375-0805
Jeffrey J Bajramovic3Rs Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands. j.j.bajramovic@uu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6504-3437
Doris WilflingsederIgnaz Semmelweis Institute, Interuniversity Institute for Infection Research, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria. doris.wilflingseder@vetmeduni.ac.at.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5888-5118

Funding

European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) CA21139
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The transition away from animal experimentation is gaining momentum across scientific disciplines, driven by technological advancements, ethical imperatives and policy support. At the forefront of this movement is the development of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). Rather than serving as mere substitutes for animal testing, NAMs represent a paradigm shift. Their growing acceptance has been reinforced by recent policy advancements, such as the US Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act 2.0 and the European Chemicals Agency's commitment to transitioning toward an animal-free regulatory system, both of which promote the adoption of NAMs. However, the term NAMs has become increasingly ambiguous, leading to confusion and potential misuse. To address this, we propose a unified definition: NAMs are species-specific methodologies, not including the use of living animals. NAMs prioritize the use of the target species in some form or another, eliminating the need for interspecies extrapolation. If the target species is human, this simple definition implies that working with experimental animals as a model never qualifies as a NAM. This distinction positions NAMs as a fundamentally different approach to the 3Rs framework of Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, and practical examples are discussed. Critically, this definition extends beyond toxicology and regulatory science, encompassing basic, applied and translational research. By leveraging cutting-edge technologies, including organoids, organ-on-chip, microfluidics, 3D bioprinting, bioinformatics, artificial intelligence and machine learning, NAMs provide novel biological insights that differ from those obtained through animal models while enhancing species-relevant data accuracy. Although challenges remain, particularly in their validation and widespread adoption, continued innovation, policy support and interdisciplinary collaboration will be key to unlocking their full potential, fostering more sustainable, humane and human-relevant approaches in biomedical research.

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.