ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2026
From animal testing to model-informed drug development: building on ICH M15 and EMA initiatives to make new approach methodologies (NAMs) deliver.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The transition from animal-based experimentation toward New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) requires not only technological innovation but also regulatory frameworks that enable evidence-based decision-making. We discuss how the European Medicines Agency's evolving strategy for regulatory acceptance of NAMs, combined with the ICH M15 guideline on Model-Informed Drug Development (MIDD), can support the integration of mechanistic pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling, physiologically based pharmacokinetic models, quantitative systems pharmacology, and artificial intelligence-driven approaches into medicines development. We argue that NAMs and MIDD are complementary: NAMs generate human-relevant experimental and computational evidence, whereas MIDD provides a quantitative framework to integrate and evaluate this evidence for defined regulatory questions and contexts of use. We further propose that routine MIDD planning, context-of-use-based case studies, regulatory-grade models and data infrastructures, and shared regulatory expertise are needed to move NAMs toward more central regulatory evidence. Rather than implying an immediate replacement of animal studies, this approach could progressively support a more simulation-informed, human-relevant, and risk-based drug development paradigm.
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.