Cited by 100Animal testing and alternativesImmunotoxicology and immune responsesAnalytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals

Validation and quality control of replacement alternatives - current status and future challenges

Leist, Marcel, Hasiwa, Nina, Daneshian, Mardas, Hartung, Thomas·2012·Toxicology Research

Abstract

Abstract Alternatives to animal testing have been developed mainly in the fields of toxicology and vaccine testing. Typical examples are the evaluation of phototoxicity, eye irritation or skin corrosion/irritation of cosmetics and industrial chemicals. However, examples can also be found in other biomedical areas, such the control of the quality of drug preparations for pyrogens or for the control of the production process of biologics, such as botulinum neurotoxin. For regulatory purposes, the quality, transferability and predictivity of an alternative method needs to be evaluated. This procedure is called the “validation process” of a new method. It follows defined rules, and several governmental institutions have been established to perform, supervise or advise on this process. As this often results in a delay of method implementation, different alternatives for the evaluation of a method's suitability and quality are under discussion. We describe here the principles of model development and quality control. We also give an overview on methods that have undergone validation. Strengths and shortcomings of traditional approaches are discussed, and new developments and challenges are outlined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1039/c2tx20011b

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The regulatory use of in vitro methods has brought about the concepts that feed into validation.

    “The regulatory use of in vitro methods has brought about the concepts that feed into validation (Leist et al., 2012).”

    From Toward good in vitro reporting standards (2019) · cites this paper as Leist et al., 2012

  • Mechanistic validation may provide a measure of test method performance even when a good reference dataset is not available.

    “Such an approach may provide a measure of test method performance, even when a good reference dataset is not available (Leist et al., 2012; Patlewicz et al., 2013; Patterson et al., 2021; Tigges et al., 2021).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 152 · Cited by 100

Authors
Leist, M., Hasiwa, N., Daneshian, M., & Hartung, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Konstanz (DE)
  • Doerenkamp-Zbinden Chair for In-vitro Toxicology and Biomedicine and Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing in Europe (CAAT-Europe), University of Konstanz, D-78467 Konstanz, Germany
Corresponding author
Leist, Marcel
Venue
Toxicology Research
Published
2012-05-28
Volume
1
Issue
1
Pages
8-22
ISSN
  • 2045-452X (ISSN-L)
  • 2045-4538
OpenAlex
W2016164331
Cited by
100
References
152
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 5
FWCI
16.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Toxicology Research (publishedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Immunology › Immunotoxicology and immune responses
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Analytical Methods in Pharmaceuticals
Keywords
alternatives to animal testing, method validation, quality control, phototoxicity testing, eye irritation, pyrogen testing, botulinum toxin, regulatory validation, model development

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