ReviewF1000Research2025
Methods2AOP: A Collaboration to Strengthen the Integration of Test Methods into the Adverse Outcome Pathway Framework.
Review in F1000Research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing toxicological interpretation and reporting ofFrontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- The FAIR AOP roadmap for 2025: Advancing findability, accessibility, interoperability, and re-usability of adverse outcome pathways.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
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
The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework is a pivotal tool for organizing mechanistic knowledge and linking it to adverse outcomes of regulatory significance. However, the integration of test method information, particularly New Approach Methods (NAMs), within the central repository for AOP knowledge, (the AOP-Wiki), has been suboptimal, limiting the framework's utility for regulatory decision-making. The Methods2AOP collaboration, comprised of various international stakeholders, was established to address this gap and enhance the role of test methods within the AOP framework. This paper reviews their work emphasizing the importance of linking detailed test method information and conceptually proposes how it may be included in the AOP knowledgebase in alignment with existing assay documentation standards and governance frameworks. The Methods2AOP collaboration proposes using ontologies to standardize and structure information, thereby facilitating interoperability, enabling reusability, and establishing clear connections between test methods and Key Events (KEs). A conceptual model is presented to demonstrate qualitative similarities between concepts in key event components and structured methods information. The implementation of Methods2AOP recommendations would increase the clarity and transparency of method descriptions, which could support regulatory acceptance and a wider adoption of NAMs. The broad community of stakeholders impacted by this work stands to benefit from the Methods2AOP recommendations through enhanced regulatory decisions, increased visibility and scientific impact, new market opportunities, and the accelerated adoption of NAMs in regulatory affairs. In summary, the Methods2AOP collaboration presents a comprehensive effort to formally standardize the integration of test methods into the AOP framework, thereby fostering a more robust, and transparent system that aligns with the goals of the scientific and regulatory communities.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.