Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42751220›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in toxicology2026

Rewriting paracelsus: linking chemical assessment to public health.

Ana Fernandez-Agudo, María Del Carmen González-Caballero, Jose V Tarazona

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in 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.

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.

Ana Fernandez-AgudoSpanish National Environmental Health Center, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
María Del Carmen González-CaballeroSpanish National Environmental Health Center, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.
Jose V TarazonaSpanish National Environmental Health Center, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human health is continuously challenged by exposure to complex mixtures of chemicals present in food, products, and the environment. Traditional risk assessment (TRA), rooted in mid-20th-century paradigms, relies on deterministic thresholds and animal testing to define safe exposure levels. This approach, while useful for regulatory simplicity, fails to represent real-world variability, mixture effects, and lifelong events, limiting its relevance for public health protection. Here we show that a probabilistic Next-Generation Risk Assessment (NGRA) framework integrating quantitative modelling, mechanistic biology, and New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), can transform toxicological evidence into probability distributions, estimating the likelihood of adverse outcomes under realistic exposure scenarios. Central to this approach are Health Impact Pathways (HIPs), which connect molecular perturbations to population-level health indicators, bridging toxicology and epidemiology. The framework explicitly distinguishes susceptible groups, such as individuals in physiologically sensitive stages like pregnancy, from vulnerable groups, including those with pre-existing diseases or higher exposure burdens, poorly covered in TRA. By covering these groups, probabilistic NGRA enables more inclusive, relevant, and informative evaluations that align with FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) data principles and minimize animal testing, offering a scientifically grounded framework for improving chemical safety evaluations and public health protection.

Indexed as

health impact pathways (HIPs)new approach methodologies (NAMs)next-generation risk assessment (NGRA)personalized risk assessment (PRA)probabilistic risk assessment

Identifiers

PMID42751220
PMCPMC13580035

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.