The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Comprehensive in Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) initiative — Update on progress
Open accessAbstract
The implementation of the ICH S7B and E14 guidelines has been successful in preventing the introduction of potentially torsadogenic drugs to the market, but it has also unduly constrained drug development by focusing on hERG block and QT prolongation as essential determinants of proarrhythmia risk. The Comprehensive in Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) initiative was established to develop a new paradigm for assessing proarrhythmic risk, building on the emergence of new technologies and an expanded understanding of torsadogenic mechanisms beyond hERG block. An international multi-disciplinary team of regulatory, industry and academic scientists are working together to develop and validate a set of predominantly nonclinical assays and methods that eliminate the need for the thorough-QT study and enable a more precise prediction of clinical proarrhythmia risk. The CiPA effort is led by a Steering Team that provides guidance, expertise and oversight to the various working groups and includes partners from US FDA, HESI, CSRC, SPS, EMA, Health Canada, Japan NIHS, and PMDA. The working groups address the three pillars of CiPA that evaluate drug effects on: 1) human ventricular ionic channel currents in heterologous expression systems, 2) in silico integration of cellular electrophysiologic effects based on ionic current effects, the ion channel effects, and 3) fully integrated biological systems (stem-cell-derived cardiac myocytes and the human ECG). This article provides an update on the progress of the initiative towards its target date of December 2017 for completing validation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Evolution of strategies to improve preclinical cardiac safety testing
Gintant, G., Sager, P. T., & Stockbridge, N. (2016) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd.2015.34 · Cited by 407
Self-citation
Cited by
Blinova, K., Dang, Q., Millard, D., Smith, G., Pierson, J., Guo, L., Brock, M., Lu, H. R., Kraushaar, U., Zeng, H., et al. (2018) · Cell Reports · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2018.08.079 · Cited by 373
Self-citationGuidance Document on Good In Vitro Method Practices (GIVIMP)
OECD (2018) · OECD Series on Testing and Assessment · doi:10.1787/9789264304796-en · Cited by 161
Nguyen, N., Nguyen, W., Nguyenton, B., Ratchada, P., Page, G., Miller, P. E., Ghetti, A., & Abi-Gerges, N. (2017) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2017.01073 · Cited by 75
Validation and Trustworthiness of Multiscale Models of Cardiac Electrophysiology
Pathmanathan, P., & Gray, R. A. (2018) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2018.00106 · Cited by 63
Keung, W., Chan, P. K. W., Backeris, P. C., Lee, E. K., Wong, N., Wong, A. O. T., Wong, G. K. Y., Chan, C. W. Y., Fermini, B., Costa, K. D., et al. (2019) · Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1002/cpt.1385 · Cited by 54
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Colatsky, T., Fermini, B., Gintant, G., Pierson, J. B., Sager, P., Sekino, Y., Strauss, D. G., & Stockbridge, N.
- Venue
- Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2016-09
- Volume
- 81
- Pages
- 15-20
- ISSN
- 1056-8719 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2415670168
- Cited by
- 464
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 44.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Comprehensive in Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) initiative — Update on progress. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.vascn.2016.06.002
- The paper
- Colatsky, T., Fermini, B., Gintant, G., Pierson, J. B., Sager, P., Sekino, Y., Strauss, D. G., & Stockbridge, N. (2016). The Comprehensive in Vitro Proarrhythmia Assay (CiPA) initiative — Update on progress. Journal of Pharmacological and Toxicological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vascn.2016.06.002
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.