Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37422975›Full record

ReviewEnvironment international2023

New approach methodologies in human regulatory toxicology - Not if, but how and when!

Sebastian Schmeisser, Andrea Miccoli, Martin von Bergen, Elisabet Berggren, Albert Braeuning, Wibke Busch, Christian Desaintes, Anne Gourmelon, Roland Grafström, Joshua Harrill and 19 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environment international, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 156 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
156citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

156 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Planetary Boundary for Novel Entities: Time for a Reboot.Environmental science & technology · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Organ-on-a-chip toxicology.Innovation (Cambridge (Mass.)) · 2026
    Review

96 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

29 authors.

Sebastian SchmeisserGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany. Electronic address: sebastian.schmeisser@bfr.bund.de.
Andrea MiccoliGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany; National Research Council, Ancona, Italy.
Martin von BergenHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany; German Centre for Integrative Biodiversity Research (iDiv) Halle-Jena-Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany; University of Leipzig, Faculty of Life Sciences, Institute of Biochemistry, Leipzig, Germany.
Elisabet BerggrenEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy.
Albert BraeuningGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Wibke BuschHelmholtz Centre for Environmental Research-UFZ, Leipzig, Germany.
Christian DesaintesEuropean Commission (EC), Directorate General for Research and Innovation (RTD), Brussels, Belgium.
Anne GourmelonOrganisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Environment Directorate, Paris, France.
Roland GrafströmKarolinska Institute, Solna, Sweden.
Joshua HarrillCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Durham, USA.
Thomas HartungCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Baltimore MD USA, CAAT-Europe, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Matthias HerzlerGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
George E N KassEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy.
Nicole KleinstreuerNTP Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods (NICEATM), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), Durham, USA.
Marcel LeistCAAT‑Europe and Department of Biology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany.
Mirjam LuijtenCentre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, the Netherlands.
Philip Marx-StoeltingGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Oliver PoetzNMI Natural and Medical Science Institute at the University of Tuebingen, Reutlingen, Germany; SIGNATOPE GmbH, Reutlingen, Germany.
Bennard van RavenzwaayWageningen University and Research, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Rob RoggebandEuropean Partnership for Alternative Approaches to Animal Testing (EPAA), Procter and Gamble Services Company NV/SA, Strombeek-Bever, Belgium.
Vera RogiersScientific Committee on Consumer Safety (SCCS), Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Adrian RothF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland.
Pascal SandersFougeres Laboratory, French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), Fougères, France France.
Russell S ThomasCenter for Computational Toxicology and Exposure (CCTE), United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), Durham, USA.
Anne Marie VinggaardNational Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, Lyngby, Denmark.
Mathieu VinkenVrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Brussels, Belgium.
Bob van de WaterLeiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Andreas LuchGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Tewes TralauGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.

Funding

Scientific Cyberinfrastructure Research ProgramZIAES103385 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI WALKER, VICKIE · 2022 to 2025
$17.4M
Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The predominantly animal-centric approach of chemical safety assessment has increasingly come under pressure. Society is questioning overall performance, sustainability, continued relevance for human health risk assessment and ethics of this system, demanding a change of paradigm. At the same time, the scientific toolbox used for risk assessment is continuously enriched by the development of "New Approach Methodologies" (NAMs). While this term does not define the age or the state of readiness of the innovation, it covers a wide range of methods, including quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) predictions, high-throughput screening (HTS) bioassays, omics applications, cell cultures, organoids, microphysiological systems (MPS), machine learning models and artificial intelligence (AI). In addition to promising faster and more efficient toxicity testing, NAMs have the potential to fundamentally transform today's regulatory work by allowing more human-relevant decision-making in terms of both hazard and exposure assessment. Yet, several obstacles hamper a broader application of NAMs in current regulatory risk assessment. Constraints in addressing repeated-dose toxicity, with particular reference to the chronic toxicity, and hesitance from relevant stakeholders, are major challenges for the implementation of NAMs in a broader context. Moreover, issues regarding predictivity, reproducibility and quantification need to be addressed and regulatory and legislative frameworks need to be adapted to NAMs. The conceptual perspective presented here has its focus on hazard assessment and is grounded on the main findings and conclusions from a symposium and workshop held in Berlin in November 2021. It intends to provide further insights into how NAMs can be gradually integrated into chemical risk assessment aimed at protection of human health, until eventually the current paradigm is replaced by an animal-free "Next Generation Risk Assessment" (NGRA).

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceToxicity TestsHumansReproducibility of ResultsRisk AssessmentChemical safetyHuman health protectionNew approach methodologiesNext generation risk assessmentRegulatory risk assessmentRegulatory toxicology

Identifiers

PMID37422975
PMCPMC10858683

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.