ArticleArchives of toxicology2026
The NAMs conundrum in the current regulatory risk assessment: progress without clarity?
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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The gradual build up of political and societal pressures over the past few decades has led to a considerable momentum for moving away from animal testing for chemical risk assessments towards alternative non-animal methods (NAMs). However, despite a lot of progress made in this field, the true potential of NAMs to replace animal tests has yet to be realised. This is because of the structure and practice of the current risk assessment paradigm, and the uncertainties and lack of standardised frameworks for 'weighting' NAMs data when integrating to the overall weight of evidence for use in risk assessment. This Editorial highlights the key issues to focus attention in regard to the mismatch between general expectations and true ranking of the data generated by NAMs for use in regulatory risk assessment of chemicals.
Identifiers
42637954What 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.