Cited by 93Animal testing and alternativesCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentAgricultural safety and regulations

Food for Thought … Mechanistic Validation

Open access
Hartung, Thomas·2013·ALTEX

Abstract

Validation of new approaches in regulatory toxicology is commonly defined as the independent assessment of the reproducibility and relevance (the scientific basis and predictive capacity) of a test for a particular purpose. In large ring trials, the emphasis to date has been mainly on reproducibility and predictive capacity (comparison to the traditional test) with less attention given to the scientific or mechanistic basis. Assessing predictive capacity is difficult for novel approaches (which are based on mechanism), such as pathways of toxicity or the complex networks within the organism (systems toxicology). This is highly relevant for implementing Toxicology for the 21st Century, either by high-throughput testing in the ToxCast/Tox21 project or omics-based testing in the Human Toxome Project. This article explores the mostly neglected assessment of a test's scientific basis, which moves mechanism and causality to the foreground when validating/qualifying tests. Such mechanistic validation faces the problem of establishing causality in complex systems. However, pragmatic adaptations of the Bradford Hill criteria, as well as bioinformatic tools, are emerging. As critical infrastructures of the organism are perturbed by a toxic mechanism we argue that by focusing on the target of toxicity and its vulnerability, in addition to the way it is perturbed, we can anchor the identification of the mechanism and its verification.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14573/altex.2013.2.119

Cites

68 of 68 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Baker M The ’omes puzzle. Nature 2013 494 416 419 23446398
  2. Coecke S Balls M Bowe G Guidance on good cell culture practice. a report of the second ECVAM task force on good cell culture practice. Altern Lab Anim 2005 33 261 287 16180980
  3. Hartung T McBride M Food for thought... on mapping the human toxome. ALTEX 2011 28 83 93 21625825
  4. Popper KR Science as Falsification. Conjectures and Refutations 1963 33 39 Routledge and Keagan Paul London

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hartung, T.
Venue
ALTEX
Publisher
ALTEX Edition
Published
2013
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
119-130
ISSN
  • 0946-7785 (ISSN-L)
  • 1868-596X
OpenAlex
W2319709284
Cited by
93
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 3
FWCI
17.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • ALTEX (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • KOPS (University of Konstanz) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • WBI Studies Repository (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (U18TR000547, RO1ES020750)
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U01 FD004230)
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R01ES020750)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
Keywords
regulatory toxicology, Bradford Hill criteria, systems toxicology, ToxCast, Tox21, high-throughput testing
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Animal Testing Alternatives, Computer Simulation, Gene Expression Regulation, Homeostasis, Humans, Predictive Value of Tests, Risk Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Computational Biology, Animal Experimentation

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