Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42719207›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026

State of the industry: integration of 3Rs principles and new approach methodologies in non-clinical product development through fit-for-purpose.

Sabine M Poppenborg, Debra Aub Webster, Björn Carlsson

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 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

3 authors.

Sabine M PoppenborgSSI Strategy, Morristown, NJ, United States.
Debra Aub WebsterSSI Strategy, Morristown, NJ, United States.
Björn CarlssonSSI Strategy, Morristown, NJ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regulators, such as the FDA and EMA, are increasingly signaling expectations for broader and earlier adoption of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) to reduce, refine, and, where justified, replace animal studies (3Rs principle)-particularly where NAMs can deliver improved human relevance, clearer mechanistic insight, or more efficient regulatory decision-making. This creates both an opportunity and a responsibility for drug developers: NAMs should no longer be viewed solely as exploratory tools, but as strategic components of an integrated pivotal non-clinical data package. This is already enshrined in various regulatory guidelines, roadmaps and position papers, but there is no single "approved list" of NAMs for pharmaceutical safety and efficacy assessment that applies across all products and agencies. Regulators explicitly support NAM adoption when scientifically sound, qualified for a defined context of use (COU), and integrated under a weight-of-evidence (WoE) approach. To support drug developers in responding to these expectations, a stepwise approach to expand the use of scientifically validated NAMs, such as

Indexed as

3Rs principlescontext of usefit-for-purposenew approach methodologiesnon-clinical drug developmentweight-of-evidence

Identifiers

PMID42719207
PMCPMC13555728

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.