ArticleArchives of toxicology2026
Applicability of NAMs to support a read-across based hazard assessment workflow for systemic toxicity: a conazole case study.
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
32 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This work explores the applicability of new approach methodologies (NAMs) using a read-across approach to predict systemic toxicity with liver as the critical target organ, and derive a point of departurefor the target compound (TC) difenoconazole. Eight conazoles were used as source compounds (SCs), alongside metabolites hydroxyitraconazole and 1,2,4-triazole. The case study was structured according to the Alternative Safety Profiling Algorithm (ASPA) workflow developed within the RISK-HUNT3R project. Hierarchical clustering using chemical fingerprints identified similarity of different SCs to the TC, supporting their inclusion in the read-across analysis. A broad screening panel of NAMs, including nuclear receptor reporter assays, ToxProfiler, Cell Painting PLUS, transcriptomics in primary human hepatocytes and H295R steroidogenesis assays, was used to characterize biological activity of the TC and SCs and to substantiate the structure-based read-across. In a first prediction round, the nearest neighbour quantitative read-across approach (based on allometrically-scaled human lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs) of the SC) was used to predict 6.57 mg/kg/day as the LOAEL of the TC. This closely aligned with the in vivo-based value of 4.88 mg/kg/day. In a second approach, data from NAMs were used to predict human equivalent dose (HED), and the respective LOAELs of SC and TC, based on physiologically based kinetic modelling with quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation. The HED derived from NAMs was approximately ten-fold lower than the LOAELs from traditional approaches. This case study illustrates suitable (ASPA-guided) approaches as well as the toxicological applicability of a NAM-based read-across assessment to obtain safe/conservative estimates of toxicity.
Identifiers
42814138What 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.