ReviewNano convergence2026
New approach methodologies for next-generation risk assessment of nanomaterials and nano-enabled products.
Review in Nano convergence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
40 authors.
Funding
Abstract
New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) are increasingly promoted for animal-free nanosafety assessment, yet their regulatory use remains constrained by fragmented regulatory criteria and nanomaterial-specific testing complexities. This review comprehensively analyzes the convergence of advanced cell biology, nanotechnology, and information technology in reshaping safety evaluations, with a focus on regulatory translation across global frameworks. We first summarize enabling technologies, including advanced in vitro and ex vivo systems, organoids, microphysiological systems, high-dimensional single-cell multi-omics and label-free hyperspectral imaging, AutoML, generative AI, physiologically based kinetic modeling, and in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation. We then analyze the regulatory landscape, emphasizing OECD harmonization efforts, the Mutual Acceptance of Data system, and regional developments across Europe, Africa, the Americas, and Asia-Pacific. A central theme is that regulatory acceptance of NAMs for nanomaterials requires not only biological relevance, reproducibility, and context-of-use definition, but also robust physicochemical characterization, exposure control, dosimetry, and data interoperability. Industrial implementation in pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, agrochemicals, antimicrobials, and environmental protection is discussed as a measure of regulatory readiness and scalability. Finally, we outline future directions involving Smart NAMs, digital twins, and Safe and Sustainable by Design (SSbD) frameworks. By integrating technological, regulatory, and implementation perspectives, this review identifies pathways toward harmonized, mechanistic, and human- or target species-relevant next-generation risk assessment (NGRA) for nanotechnology.
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.