ArticleIn vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal1993
Framework for validation and implementation of in vitro toxicity tests.
Article in In vitro cellular & developmental biology. Animal, 1993. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Validation of alternative methods for toxicity testing.Environmental health perspectives · 1998Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The development and application of in vitro alternatives designed to reduce or replace the use of animals, or to lessen the distress and discomfort of laboratory animals, is a rapidly developing trend in toxicology. However, at present there is no formal administrative process to organize, coordinate, or evaluate validation activities. A framework capable of fostering the validation of new methods is essential for the effective transfer of new technologic developments from the research laboratory into practical use. This committee has identified four essential validation resources: chemical bank(s), cell and tissue banks, a data bank, and reference laboratories. The creation of a Scientific Advisory Board composed of experts in the various aspects and endpoints of toxicity testing, and representing the academic, industrial, and regulatory communities, is recommended. Test validation acceptance is contingent on broad buy-in by disparate groups in the scientific community--academics, industry, and government. This is best achieved by early and frequent communication among parties and agreement on common goals. It is hoped that the creation of a validation infrastructure composed of the elements described in this report will facilitate scientific acceptance and utilization of alternative methodologies and speed implementation of replacement, reduction, and refinement alternatives in toxicity testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
8407711What 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.