The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Incorporating New Technologies Into Toxicity Testing and Risk Assessment: Moving From 21st Century Vision to a Data-Driven Framework
Open accessAbstract
Based on existing data and previous work, a series of studies is proposed as a basis toward a pragmatic early step in transforming toxicity testing. These studies were assembled into a data-driven framework that invokes successive tiers of testing with margin of exposure (MOE) as the primary metric. The first tier of the framework integrates data from high-throughput in vitro assays, in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) pharmacokinetic modeling, and exposure modeling. The in vitro assays are used to separate chemicals based on their relative selectivity in interacting with biological targets and identify the concentration at which these interactions occur. The IVIVE modeling converts in vitro concentrations into external dose for calculation of the point of departure (POD) and comparisons to human exposure estimates to yield a MOE. The second tier involves short-term in vivo studies, expanded pharmacokinetic evaluations, and refined human exposure estimates. The results from the second tier studies provide more accurate estimates of the POD and the MOE. The third tier contains the traditional animal studies currently used to assess chemical safety. In each tier, the POD for selective chemicals is based primarily on endpoints associated with a proposed mode of action, whereas the POD for nonselective chemicals is based on potential biological perturbation. Based on the MOE, a significant percentage of chemicals evaluated in the first 2 tiers could be eliminated from further testing. The framework provides a risk-based and animal-sparing approach to evaluate chemical safety, drawing broadly from previous experience but incorporating technological advances to increase efficiency.
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
Van den Berg, M., Birnbaum, L. S., Denison, M., De Vito, M., Farland, W., Feeley, M., Fiedler, H., Hakansson, H., Hanberg, A., Haws, L., et al. (2006) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfl055 · Cited by 3,785
Self-citationThe Connectivity Map: A new tool for biomedical research
Lamb, J. (2007) · Nature Reviews Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc2044 · Cited by 945
Rodgers, T., Leahy, D., & Rowland, M. (2005) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · doi:10.1002/jps.20322 · Cited by 776
Poulin, P., & Theil, F. (2002) · Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences · doi:10.1002/jps.10005 · Cited by 568
Cited by
New approach methodologies in human regulatory toxicology – Not if, but how and when!
Schmeisser, S., Miccoli, A., von Bergen, M., Berggren, E., Braeuning, A., Busch, W., Desaintes, C., Gourmelon, A., Grafström, R., Harrill, J., et al. (2023) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2023.108082 · Cited by 380
Self-citationHalappanavar, S., van den Brule, S., Nymark, P., Gaté, L., Seidel, C., Valentino, S., Zhernovkov, V., Høgh Danielsen, P., De Vizcaya, A., Wolff, H., et al. (2020) · Particle and Fibre Toxicology · doi:10.1186/s12989-020-00344-4 · Cited by 246
Judson, R., Houck, K., Martin, M., Richard, A. M., Knudsen, T. B., Shah, I., Little, S., Wambaugh, J., Woodrow Setzer, R., Kothya, P., et al. (2016) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfw092 · Cited by 232
Self-citationNyffeler, J., Willis, C., Lougee, R., Richard, A., Paul-Friedman, K., & Harrill, J. A. (2020) · Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.taap.2019.114876 · Cited by 136
Patlewicz, G., Richard, A. M., Williams, A. J., Grulke, C. M., Sams, R., Lambert, J., Noyes, P. D., DeVito, M. J., Hines, R. N., Strynar, M., et al. (2019) · Environmental Health Perspectives · doi:10.1289/ehp4555 · Cited by 128
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Thomas, R. S., Philbert, M. A., Auerbach, S. S., Wetmore, B. A., Devito, M. J., Cote, I., Rowlands, J. C., Whelan, M. P., Hays, S. M., Andersen, M. E., Meek, M. E. (., Reiter, L. W., Lambert, J. C., Clewell, H. J., Stephens, M. L., Zhao, Q. J., Wesselkamper, S. C., Flowers, L., Carney, E. W., Pastoor, T. P., Petersen, D. D., Yauk, C. L., & Nong, A.
- Venue
- Toxicological Sciences
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2013-08-19
- Volume
- 136
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 4-18
- ISSN
- 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
- 1096-6080
- OpenAlex
- W2116461220
- Cited by
- 272
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 39.81
- 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: Incorporating New Technologies Into Toxicity Testing and Risk Assessment: Moving From 21st Century Vision to a Data-Driven Framework. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/toxsci/kft178
- The paper
- Thomas, R. S., Philbert, M. A., Auerbach, S. S., Wetmore, B. A., Devito, M. J., Cote, I., Rowlands, J. C., Whelan, M. P., Hays, S. M., Andersen, M. E., Meek, M. E. (., Reiter, L. W., Lambert, J. C., Clewell, H. J., Stephens, M. L., Zhao, Q. J., Wesselkamper, S. C., Flowers, L., Carney, E. W., . . . Nong, A. (2013). Incorporating New Technologies Into Toxicity Testing and Risk Assessment: Moving From 21st Century Vision to a Data-Driven Framework. Toxicological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kft178
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.