Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38480536›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2024

Recent advances and current challenges of new approach methodologies in developmental and adult neurotoxicity testing.

Melania Maria Serafini, Sara Sepehri, Miriam Midali, Marth Stinckens, Marta Biesiekierska, Anna Wolniakowska, Alexandra Gatzios, Elise Rundén-Pran, Edyta Reszka, Marina Marinovich and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Zebrafish: A Versatile and Powerful Model for Biomedical Research.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  9. Advances in Cytotoxicity Testing: From In Vitro Assays to In Silico Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
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

14 authors.

Melania Maria SerafiniDepartment of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, "Rodolfo Paoletti", Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy. melania.serafini@unimi.it.ORCID 0000-0002-5477-4971
Sara SepehriDepartment of In Vitro Toxicology and Dermato-Cosmetology (IVTD), Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Miriam MidaliDepartment of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, "Rodolfo Paoletti", Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Marth StinckensDepartment of In Vitro Toxicology and Dermato-Cosmetology (IVTD), Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Marta BiesiekierskaDepartment of Translational Research, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lodz, Poland.
Anna WolniakowskaDepartment of Translational Research, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lodz, Poland.
Alexandra GatziosDepartment of In Vitro Toxicology and Dermato-Cosmetology (IVTD), Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Elise Rundén-PranThe Climate and Environmental Research Institute NILU, Kjeller, Norway.
Edyta ReszkaDepartment of Translational Research, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lodz, Poland.
Marina MarinovichDepartment of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, "Rodolfo Paoletti", Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Tamara VanhaeckeDepartment of In Vitro Toxicology and Dermato-Cosmetology (IVTD), Vrije Universiteit Brussels, Brussels, Belgium.
Joanna RoszakDepartment of Translational Research, Nofer Institute of Occupational Medicine, Lodz, Poland.
Barbara VivianiDepartment of Pharmacological and Biomolecular Sciences, "Rodolfo Paoletti", Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan, Italy.
Tanima SenGuptaThe Climate and Environmental Research Institute NILU, Kjeller, Norway.

Funding

Horizon 2020 Framework Programme H2020/952404/2020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Adult neurotoxicity (ANT) and developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) assessments aim to understand the adverse effects and underlying mechanisms of toxicants on the human nervous system. In recent years, there has been an increasing focus on the so-called new approach methodologies (NAMs). The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), together with European and American regulatory agencies, promote the use of validated alternative test systems, but to date, guidelines for regulatory DNT and ANT assessment rely primarily on classical animal testing. Alternative methods include both non-animal approaches and test systems on non-vertebrates (e.g., nematodes) or non-mammals (e.g., fish). Therefore, this review summarizes the recent advances of NAMs focusing on ANT and DNT and highlights the potential and current critical issues for the full implementation of these methods in the future. The status of the DNT in vitro battery (DNT IVB) is also reviewed as a first step of NAMs for the assessment of neurotoxicity in the regulatory context. Critical issues such as (i) the need for test batteries and method integration (from in silico and in vitro to in vivo alternatives, e.g., zebrafish, C. elegans) requiring interdisciplinarity to manage complexity, (ii) interlaboratory transferability, and (iii) the urgent need for method validation are discussed.

Indexed as

Caenorhabditis elegansNeurotoxicity SyndromesAnimalsHumansToxicity TestsZebrafishAdult neurotoxicityAdverse outcome pathwaysDevelopmental neurotoxicityNew approach methodologies

Identifiers

PMID38480536
PMCPMC10965660

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.