Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42519109›Full record

ReviewNAM journal2026

Defining benchmarking in the context of safety assessment of personal care and cosmetic products using New Approach Methodologies.

Huang Huang, Gertrude-Emilia Costin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NAM journal, 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

2 authors.

Huang HuangInstitute for In Vitro Sciences, Inc. (IIVS), 30 W Watkins Mill Road, Suite 100, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USA.
Gertrude-Emilia CostinInstitute for In Vitro Sciences, Inc. (IIVS), 30 W Watkins Mill Road, Suite 100, Gaithersburg, MD, 20878, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The concept of benchmark materials in the personal care and cosmetic industry is often based on the positioning of prototypes relative to the leading brand within a given product category. The main points of comparison are the market ranking, performance regarding consumers' perception, aesthetics, cost, complexity of the manufacturing process and patents covering the product and/or its components. Even though benchmark materials are often included when conducting safety tests of cosmetic and personal care products, the concept is rather loosely defined in toxicological profiling. The use of benchmarks becomes of particular interest when safety testing is based on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) (

Indexed as

BenchmarksCosmeticsNew approach methodologies (NAMs)Safety assessment

Identifiers

PMID42519109
PMCPMC13382591

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.