ReviewArchives of toxicology2026
Scientific perspectives on in vivo developmental neurotoxicity testing: study design, regulatory context, and future directions.
Review 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) potential of (agro)chemicals is assessed in rodents according to OECD Test Guidelines (TG) 426 (DNT) or 443 (Extended One-Generation Reproductive Toxicity; EOGRTS) incorporating a DNT cohort. While the EOGRTS evaluates reproductive and neurotoxicity endpoints across multiple life stages, key differences in study design, dose selection, and exposure duration between OECD 426 and OECD 443 can complicate data interpretation and impact hazard identification and risk assessment. This manuscript evaluates current DNT testing strategies and examines the feasibility of a combined DNT-EOGRTS approach aimed at generating data for regulatory decision making. This combined approach requires substantial modifications to the EOGRTS design, and its implementation should be approached with caution. Given the increased complexity and logistical challenges, additional cognitive assessments such as learning and memory (L&M) should only be included when scientifically justified on a substance specific basis. Retrospective analyses indicate that L&M is among the least sensitive DNT endpoints, and its inclusion in an EOGRTS does not yield a functional equivalent of a standalone DNT. The review also examines regulatory triggers and recent regulatory decisions relevant to inclusion of cognitive assessments. Finally, the status and limitations of alternative approaches, including the in vitro DNT battery and zebrafish embryo models, are discussed. Overall, OECD 426 remains the scientifically preferred approach for DNT assessment. While a combined design may be feasible, it is inherently suboptimal for DNT evaluation. Collectively, this comprehensive review provides recommendations for generating robust DNT data while supporting animal welfare-conscious, future-oriented regulatory testing strategies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42800835What 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.