ArticleBirth defects research2026
Enumeration of Microscopic Ovarian Structures in Rodents: Best Practices and Toxicological Significance.
Article in Birth defects research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReproductive toxicity studies for industrial and agricultural chemicals require enumeration of ovarian follicles (OF). In recent years, the enumeration of corpora lutea (CL) in histological sections has also been requested. Both endpoints are now considered routine quantitative measures to assess female reproductive toxicity of (agro)chemicals and have also been used to support pharmaceutical drug development, when warranted. Procedural guidance for both endpoints from FDA, EPA, OECD, and other regional health authorities is generally limited. While most laboratories follow the generically stated procedures for including a statistically appropriate number of animals and ovarian section selection, methodologies vary significantly across the industry making cross-study data comparisons extremely challenging. In March 2023, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) published its report on its EOGRTS Review Project and noted the lack of information on laboratory proficiency and high variability as the main deficiencies in OF and CL count data which resulted in industry-wide discussions regarding the lack of published guidance and the need for updates to regulatory guidelines. In June 2025, OECD TG 443 was updated to include additional information regarding qualitative ovarian evaluation; however, no new information regarding laboratory proficiency or reduction of variability was included.
methodsWe discuss the biological relevance of these endpoints, the need for consistency across the industry, and technical and scientific considerations for quantitative ovarian assessments and present historical control data for these endpoints. RECOMMENDATIONS AND
conclusionsBased on the authors' collective experience and successful regulatory history, we put forth best practice recommendations for data collection and analysis with the goal to provide a frame of reference for industry laboratories.
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.