The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A roadmap for the development of alternative (non-animal) methods for systemic toxicity testing
Open accessAbstract
Systemic toxicity testing forms the cornerstone for the safety evaluation of substances. Pressures to move from traditional animal models to novel technologies arise from various concerns, including: the need to evaluate large numbers of previously untested chemicals and new products (such as nanoparticles or cell therapies), the limited predictivity of traditional tests for human health effects, duration and costs of current approaches, and animal welfare considerations. The latter holds especially true in the context of the scheduled 2013 marketing ban on cosmetic ingredients tested for systemic toxicity. Based on a major analysis of the status of alternative methods (Adler et al., 2011) and its independent review (Hartung et al., 2011), the present report proposes a roadmap for how to overcome the acknowledged scientific gaps for the full replacement of systemic toxicity testing using animals. Five whitepapers were commissioned addressing toxicokinetics, skin sensitization, repeated-dose toxicity, carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity testing. An expert workshop of 35 participants from Europe and the US discussed and refined these whitepapers, which were subsequently compiled to form the present report. By prioritizing the many options to move the field forward, the expert group hopes to advance regulatory science.
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
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Xu, J., & Ward, E. (2010) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20073 · Cited by 12,596
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Hao, Y., Xu, J., & Thun, M. J. (2009) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/caac.20006 · Cited by 9,709
Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates?
Kola, I., & Landis, J. (2004) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1470 · Cited by 4,167
The Causes of Cancer: Quantitative Estimates of Avoidable Risks of Cancer in the United States Today
Doll, R., & Peto, R. (1981) · JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute · doi:10.1093/jnci/66.6.1192 · Cited by 3,927 · cited 1×
“In strong contrast, the degree of contribution of chemical exposure to the overall cancer rate has been estimated at only 4% for occupational exposure, 2% for pollution, less than 1% for industrial products, and 1% for medicines and procedures (Doll and Peto, 1981).”
BackgroundHawkins, D. M. (2004) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci0342472 · Cited by 2,522
Concordance of the toxicity of pharmaceuticals in humans and in animals
Olson, H., Betton, G., Robinson, D., Thomas, K., Monro, A., Kolaja, G., Lilly, P., Sanders, J., Sipes, G., Bracken, W., et al. (2000) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1006/rtph.2000.1399 · Cited by 2,050
Comparative Developmental Anatomy of the Murine and Human Definitive Placentae
Georgiades, P., Ferguson-Smith, A. C., & Burton, G. J. (2002) · Placenta · doi:10.1053/plac.2001.0738 · Cited by 641
Coecke, S., Balls, M., Bowe, G., Davis, J., Gstraunthaler, G., Hartung, T., Hay, R., Merten, O.-W., Price, A., Schechtman, L., et al. (2005) · Alternatives to Laboratory Animals · doi:10.1177/026119290503300313 · Cited by 371
A Modular Approach to the ECVAM Principles on Test Validity
Hartung, T., Bremer, S., Casati, S., Coecke, S., Corvi, R., Fortaner, S., Gribaldo, L., Halder, M., Hoffmann, S., Roi, A. J., et al. (2004) · Alternatives to Laboratory Animals · doi:10.1177/026119290403200503 · Cited by 341
Self-citationYang, C.-H., Glover, K. P., & Han, X. (2010) · Toxicological Sciences · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfq219 · Cited by 197
Cited by
Adverse outcome pathways: opportunities, limitations and open questions
Leist, M., Ghallab, A., Graepel, R., Marchan, R., Hassan, R., Bennekou, S. H., Limonciel, A., Vinken, M., Schildknecht, S., Waldmann, T., et al. (2017) · Archives of Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s00204-017-2045-3 · Cited by 394
Systems Toxicology: From Basic Research to Risk Assessment
Sturla, S. J., Boobis, A. R., FitzGerald, R. E., Hoeng, J., Kavlock, R. J., Schirmer, K., Whelan, M., Wilks, M. F., & Peitsch, M. C. (2014) · Chemical Research in Toxicology · doi:10.1021/tx400410s · Cited by 366
Marx, U. (2016) · ALTEX · doi:10.14573/altex.1603161 · Cited by 295
The relevance and potential roles of microphysiological systems in biology and medicine
Wikswo, J. P. (2014) · Experimental Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1177/1535370214542068 · Cited by 248
Animal testing and its alternatives—the most important omics is economics
Meigs, L. (2018) · ALTEX · doi:10.14573/altex.1807041 · Cited by 184
Metadata
- Authors
- Basketter, D.
- Venue
- ALTEX
- Publisher
- ALTEX Edition
- Published
- 2012
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-91
- ISSN
- 0946-7785 (ISSN-L)
- 1868-596X
- OpenAlex
- W2170173246
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 10
- FWCI
- 40.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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
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.
