ArticleNAM journal2025
Highlighting best practices to advance next-generation risk assessment of cosmetic ingredients.
Article in NAM journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Analysis of in vitro profiling data of cosmetic ingredients within the Tox21 10K compound library for bioactivity and potential toxicity.BMC pharmacology & toxicology · 2026Article
- Towards Explainable Computational Toxicology: Linking Antitargets to Rodent Acute Toxicity.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Sensitivity Analysis of the Inputs for Bioactivity-Exposure Ratio Calculations in a NAM-Based Systemic Safety Toolbox.NAM journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
28 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Public expectations and regulatory demands have driven a paradigm shift in cosmetic ingredient safety assessment. Next-generation risk assessment (NGRA) and new approach methodologies (NAMs) provide an opportunity to implement alternative procedures which are more ethical and biologically-relevant, have the potential to become more cost-effective and time-efficient, and are at least as protective of human health as traditional, animal-based approaches. However, the sheer number and diversity of the rapidly-evolving NAMs currently available can be confusing and overwhelming to safety assessors. To successfully transition from principles to routine application, NAMs must gain acceptance within safety assessment communities. Harmonizing NAMs and establishing standardized risk assessment workflows are paramount to gaining regulatory acceptance. Consequently, the International Cooperation on Cosmetics Regulation (ICCR) has tasked a team of scientists from regulatory authorities and the cosmetic industry to define best practices which align with the ICCR principles of NGRA for cosmetic ingredients, to help advance the acceptance and use of NAMs in cosmetic safety assessment and, where applicable, regulatory decision-making.
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.