Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42183848›Full record

ArticleArchives of toxicology2026

Applicability of next-generation risk assessment generic PBK models and their performance within the chemical domain.

M Spaenig, M W Ashraf, M Bouhifd, C Drake, T Sobanski, S E Escher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

M SpaenigFraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine, Hannover, Germany. max.spaenig@item.fraunhofer.de.ORCID 0009-0002-9463-9421
M W AshrafEuropean Chemical Agency (ECHA), Helsinki, Finland.
M BouhifdEuropean Chemical Agency (ECHA), Helsinki, Finland.
C DrakeFraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine, Hannover, Germany.
T SobanskiEuropean Chemical Agency (ECHA), Helsinki, Finland.
S E EscherFraunhofer Institute for Toxicology and Experimental Medicine, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Physiologically based kinetic (PBK) models are a cornerstone of in vitro to in vivo extrapolation and are therefore central to next-generation risk assessment (NGRA). This study assesses the performance of a generic, high-throughput PBK model for 26 organic chemicals spanning a wide range of physicochemical properties. Model predictions based on standard in silico and in vitro input parameters were benchmarked against published, chemical-specific PBK models and in vivo kinetic data. Predicted plasma maximum concentrations (Cmax) were within tenfold of in vivo values for 50% of the chemicals and within threefold for 31%. Published PBK models generally showed closer agreement with in vivo Cmax, likely because they incorporate in vivo-derived kinetic parameters or chemical-specific kinetic processes. An analysis of the chemical space revealed a lipophilicity-dependent bias, where Cmax for lipophilic compounds tended to be underpredicted, whereas hydrophilic compounds were overpredicted. No other consistent trends were observed with respect to physicochemical or ADME descriptors, possibly reflecting the limited dataset size. Overall, while the generic PBK model workflow appears suitable for NGRA applications, the observed lipophilicity-dependent bias indicates that chemical-specific corrections or refinements may be required for more accurate predictions.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalOrganic ChemicalsAnimalsComputer SimulationHumansHydrophobic and Hydrophilic InteractionsKineticsRisk AssessmentOrganic ChemicalsADMEApplicability domainChemicalsPBKRegulatory useUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID42183848
PMCPMC13453979

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.