关于使用基于指南的发育神经毒性研究的信息汇编*

Kevin M. Crofton, William R. Mundy
{"title":"关于使用基于指南的发育神经毒性研究的信息汇编*","authors":"Kevin M. Crofton,&nbsp;William R. Mundy","doi":"10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recent regulatory use of in vitro assays for developmental neurotoxicity have promulgated the development of initial OECD guidance for use of data from the developmental neurotoxicity in vitro battery (DNT IVB). One limitation in use of data from NAMs like the DNT IVB are the uncertainties of in vitro to predict in vivo effects. The lack of any curated database of in vivo DNT studies hampers such a comparison. The goal of the current effort was construction of a repository of all DNT studies defined as publicly available studies that followed DNT and/or reproductive guidelines containing a DNT cohort. The first specific aim was construction of a dataset that identified published studies and regulatory documents that mention completed, underway or planned DNT studies. This included documents which use read across as well agency waivers for DNT studies. The second aim identified those documents from Aim 1 that report the results of completed DNT studies. The third aim identified DNT studies that provide regulatory reviews with summary data. A total of 1648 documents were found from the overall search that had evidence of, 1) a completed, ongoing, or planned DNT study; 2) a read-across or planned read-across; or 3) a waiver. The 1648 documents included 324 DNT study citations. Final filtering of these data yielded a list of 153 DNT studies conducted on 144 chemicals and one stressor (diet restriction) for which there were both extensive data summaries and regulatory reviews. These results likely undercount the number of conducted studies due to the limited release of information from many regulatory agencies. In addition, the amount of information provided publicly available reviews ranges widely, from a one sentence summary to an extensive review with summaries of the methods, results and data interpretations. It is hoped that this paper will persuade regulatory agencies to release more DNT studies that provide comprehensive information. This will foster transparency and ensure public confidence in regulatory decisions. In addition, these results should provide data that promotes comparisons between in vitro and in vivo DNT methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":100395,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Supporting Publications","volume":"21 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9174","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Compendium of Information on the Use of Guideline-Based Developmental Neurotoxicity Studies*\",\"authors\":\"Kevin M. Crofton,&nbsp;William R. Mundy\",\"doi\":\"10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9174\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Recent regulatory use of in vitro assays for developmental neurotoxicity have promulgated the development of initial OECD guidance for use of data from the developmental neurotoxicity in vitro battery (DNT IVB). One limitation in use of data from NAMs like the DNT IVB are the uncertainties of in vitro to predict in vivo effects. The lack of any curated database of in vivo DNT studies hampers such a comparison. The goal of the current effort was construction of a repository of all DNT studies defined as publicly available studies that followed DNT and/or reproductive guidelines containing a DNT cohort. The first specific aim was construction of a dataset that identified published studies and regulatory documents that mention completed, underway or planned DNT studies. This included documents which use read across as well agency waivers for DNT studies. The second aim identified those documents from Aim 1 that report the results of completed DNT studies. The third aim identified DNT studies that provide regulatory reviews with summary data. A total of 1648 documents were found from the overall search that had evidence of, 1) a completed, ongoing, or planned DNT study; 2) a read-across or planned read-across; or 3) a waiver. The 1648 documents included 324 DNT study citations. Final filtering of these data yielded a list of 153 DNT studies conducted on 144 chemicals and one stressor (diet restriction) for which there were both extensive data summaries and regulatory reviews. These results likely undercount the number of conducted studies due to the limited release of information from many regulatory agencies. In addition, the amount of information provided publicly available reviews ranges widely, from a one sentence summary to an extensive review with summaries of the methods, results and data interpretations. It is hoped that this paper will persuade regulatory agencies to release more DNT studies that provide comprehensive information. This will foster transparency and ensure public confidence in regulatory decisions. In addition, these results should provide data that promotes comparisons between in vitro and in vivo DNT methods.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100395,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EFSA Supporting Publications\",\"volume\":\"21 12\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9174\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EFSA Supporting Publications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9174\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EFSA Supporting Publications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-9174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近对发育性神经毒性体外检测的监管使用已经颁布了经合组织关于发育性神经毒性体外电池(DNT IVB)数据使用的初步指南。使用像DNT IVB这样的NAMs数据的一个限制是体外预测体内效应的不确定性。缺乏任何有组织的体内DNT研究数据库阻碍了这样的比较。当前工作的目标是构建一个存储所有DNT研究的存储库,这些研究被定义为遵循DNT和/或包含DNT队列的生殖指南的公开可用研究。第一个具体目标是构建一个数据集,该数据集确定已发表的研究和提到已完成、正在进行或计划的DNT研究的监管文件。这包括使用跨读的文件以及机构对DNT研究的豁免。第二个目标确定了目标1中报告已完成的DNT研究结果的文件。第三个目标是确定DNT研究,为监管审查提供汇总数据。从整体搜索中共发现了1648份文件,这些文件具有以下证据:1)已完成的、正在进行的或计划进行的DNT研究;2)跨读或有计划的跨读;或者3)弃权。这1648份文件包括324项DNT研究引用。对这些数据的最终过滤产生了153项DNT研究的清单,这些研究涉及144种化学物质和一种压力源(饮食限制),其中有广泛的数据摘要和监管审查。由于许多监管机构发布的信息有限,这些结果可能低估了已进行研究的数量。此外,公开提供的资料的数量范围很广,从一句话摘要到包含方法、结果和数据解释摘要的广泛审查。希望本文能说服监管机构发布更多提供全面信息的DNT研究。这将提高透明度,确保公众对监管决策的信心。此外,这些结果应该提供数据,促进体外和体内DNT方法之间的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Compendium of Information on the Use of Guideline-Based Developmental Neurotoxicity Studies*

Recent regulatory use of in vitro assays for developmental neurotoxicity have promulgated the development of initial OECD guidance for use of data from the developmental neurotoxicity in vitro battery (DNT IVB). One limitation in use of data from NAMs like the DNT IVB are the uncertainties of in vitro to predict in vivo effects. The lack of any curated database of in vivo DNT studies hampers such a comparison. The goal of the current effort was construction of a repository of all DNT studies defined as publicly available studies that followed DNT and/or reproductive guidelines containing a DNT cohort. The first specific aim was construction of a dataset that identified published studies and regulatory documents that mention completed, underway or planned DNT studies. This included documents which use read across as well agency waivers for DNT studies. The second aim identified those documents from Aim 1 that report the results of completed DNT studies. The third aim identified DNT studies that provide regulatory reviews with summary data. A total of 1648 documents were found from the overall search that had evidence of, 1) a completed, ongoing, or planned DNT study; 2) a read-across or planned read-across; or 3) a waiver. The 1648 documents included 324 DNT study citations. Final filtering of these data yielded a list of 153 DNT studies conducted on 144 chemicals and one stressor (diet restriction) for which there were both extensive data summaries and regulatory reviews. These results likely undercount the number of conducted studies due to the limited release of information from many regulatory agencies. In addition, the amount of information provided publicly available reviews ranges widely, from a one sentence summary to an extensive review with summaries of the methods, results and data interpretations. It is hoped that this paper will persuade regulatory agencies to release more DNT studies that provide comprehensive information. This will foster transparency and ensure public confidence in regulatory decisions. In addition, these results should provide data that promotes comparisons between in vitro and in vivo DNT methods.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Administrative guidance for the preparation of notifications and applications on traditional foods from third countries in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 Technical Report on the notification of roasted seeds of Dipteryx alata Vogel as a traditional food from a third country pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 Arrhenodes minutus Pest Report to support the ranking of EU candidate priority pests Polygraphus proximus Pest Report to support the ranking of EU candidate priority pests Exploring the contribution of citizen science to statistically sound and risk-based surveillance of insect pests in the EU
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1