Toxicology letters最新文献

{"title":"S04-02 Implemetation of ICHS1B addendum: a regulatory point of view","authors":"K. Siezen","doi":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.055","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.055","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Since the revision of ICH S1B has come into effect in 2022, several Weight of Evidence documents have been submitted to regulatory authorities, to establish the risk of a carcinogenic effect of a medicinal product, and the need for a 2-year rat study to further investigate this risk. An overview will be provided, illustrating how many and to which authorities WoE approaches are submitted, and what proportion is accepted or denied. Further an analysis of reasons why such decisions were made is provided. Any discrepancies between regulatory agencies on the decision of accepting or denying the WoE will be presented and discussed further.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23206,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology letters","volume":"411 ","pages":"Pages S17-S18"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145011195","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"S02-03 Understanding (Un)certainty in Next Generation Risk Assessment","authors":"U. Sahlin","doi":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.048","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.048","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Next Generation Risk Assessment use New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), which require new ways to integrate diverse evidence and its associated uncertainties. The design of NGRA is therefore an opportunity to consider and develop rigorous practices to characterise and communicate uncertainty to decision makers. For this to be successful, it is advisable to consider recommendations for characterising and communicating (un)certainty in scientific assessment in general. In particular, uncertainty characterisation should evaluate the combined impact of uncertainties on the overall uncertainty in the answer to an assessment question and communicate (un)certainty in a way that is relevant for decision makers. In this talk, I give an overview of methods for characterising uncertainty within an NGRA probabilistic assessment framework and present challenges for tuning uncertainty characterisation for NGRA.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23206,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology letters","volume":"411 ","pages":"Page S16"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145009893","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"CEC06-06 Gabapentinoids Misuse: Escalating Trends and Associated Risks","authors":"P. Sader ,&nbsp;L. Chevillard ,&nbsp;J. Kattan ,&nbsp;A. Hajj ,&nbsp;B. Mégarbane","doi":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.041","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.041","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As the opioid crisis continues to pose major public health issues, effective withdrawal syndrome and pain management strategies remain challenging but crucial. Gabapentinoids, initially developed as antiepileptic drugs, have become widely used to manage chronic pain, particularly neuropathic pain. Numerous studies highlight their safety and efficacy, whether used alone or in combination with opioids, to reduce opioid dosage, enhance the analgesic effects and reduce withdrawal symptoms. However, increasing prescription of gabapentinoids beyond approved indications has raised concerns. This expanded use has led to greater availability and, consequently, a rise in reports of gabapentinoid-related adverse events and poisonings, with a growing and alarming pattern of misuse and abuse. Such patterns are particularly prevalent among individuals with a history of opioid addiction, who seek to intensify their euphoric effects. One concern regarding gabapentinoid misuse is their possible drug-drug interaction with opioids and other central nervous system depressants. By enhancing the sedative and respiratory depressant effects, gabapentinoids contribute to a significantly higher risk of opioid-related overdose and death. These concerns highlight the need to reassess prescribing practices and raise awareness about the risks associated with gabapentinoid misuse, particularly in vulnerable populations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23206,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology letters","volume":"411 ","pages":"Page S13"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145009913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"S11-02 In vitro macrophage assay to predict toxicity of particles – an update from the EU MACRAMÉ project","authors":"E. Tha","doi":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.076","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.076","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>No abstract has been submitted.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23206,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology letters","volume":"411 ","pages":"Page S25"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145010730","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"CEC03-03 Case studies of PBPK enabled safety assessments","authors":"J. Pletz","doi":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.022","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.022","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Accurate exposure assessment is fundamental to ensuring safety in drug development. Physiologically based (pharmaco-)kinetic (PB(P)K) and organ-level mechanistic models have emerged as pivotal tools in predicting exposure over time for a target organ or tissue, in particular for small molecules. These models enable simulations across different dosing scenarios, facilitate interspecies extrapolation, help assess interindividual variability, and support <em>in vitro</em> to <em>in vivo</em> extrapolation (IVIVE). Overall, these approaches greatly promote the integration and contextualisation of <em>in vitro</em> data and, as a result, enhance the relevance and applicability of <em>in vitro</em> findings to real-world biological systems. Incorporating toxicologically relevant mechanistic <em>in vitro</em> data enables the quantitative evaluation of exposure-effect relationships within toxicological pathways, which are otherwise challenging to assess, thereby improving the accuracy of safety assessments.</div><div>In addition to evaluating the toxicokinetics of a compound, toxicodynamic components may be added to a PB(P)K or organ-level mechanistic model to investigate how exposure and a toxic effect are related and how an adverse effect would evolve with varying exposure over time. If data and knowledge of the mechanism of action allow for this, such approaches have the potential to greatly enhance the interpretation of <em>in vivo</em> toxicity testing outcomes, in particular in the context of delayed adverse effects. In complex organ systems, in which several mechanisms typically contribute to an organ-level effect, these models can help to dissect individually contributing factors. For instance, in the kidneys, damage or impairment of the vascular system may induce a secondary adverse effect on renal function through a primary damage of the renal vasculature.</div><div>This session will show some examples of how PB(P)K estimated organ-level exposure can be used to assess the risk of drug-induced adverse effects at an early stage of drug development. During this session, we will discuss common challenges and factors contributing to uncertainty underlying simulation results.</div><div>In addition, we will focus on the kidney as the target organ, and showcase examples of assessing exposure at different sections of a nephron using a human PB(P)K model coupled with a mechanistic model of the human kidney. Active and passive secretion and reabsorption processes, glomerular filtration, blood and luminal fluid flows, and metabolism will be considered. Moreover, differences of physiological parameters between young and elderly individuals will be taken into account to illustrate the power of such models in investigating vulnerable populations.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23206,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology letters","volume":"411 ","pages":"Pages S7-S8"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145010837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mechanism-Focused Research: The Foundation of Scientifically Based Carcinogen Risk Assessment","authors":"J. Klaunig","doi":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.008","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.008","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;div&gt;This year, 2025, marks the 5th decade of my initiation into carcinogenesis research. Work in my laboratory has focused on understanding the mechanisms by which environmental and pharmaceutical chemical agents induce cancer. We have focused on the liver as the target organ, given that it is the predominate site of neoplasms induced by chemical in chronic rodent bioassays. Our work has utilized a multistage, multistep liver tumor model as the foundation for dissecting the key events of the carcinogenesis process in the liver. Historically, it was assumed that all chemical carcinogens were genotoxic/mutagenic in action producing DNA damage and mutation of key growth regulatory genes resulting in neoplasia. However, subsequent studies revealed that this simplest approach was not apparent seen with many agents that produced cancer in rodents and humans. While a mutational event is needed for neoplasia, the induction of cell proliferation by the carcinogen in the target tissue has been shown to be of utmost importance in the neoplastic process. In the case of liver carcinogenesis, the induction of cell growth either through increased cell proliferation or decreased apoptosis. In the liver this can occur through a mitogenic stimulus (nuclear receptor mediated) or through compensatory hyperplasia subsequent to cytotoxicity. My lab has combined these mechanistic concepts with the pathology of the multistep liver carcinogenesis process to further develop a mode of action approach. The importance of the multistep concept is that each step is defined by molecular and pharmacological attributes of the carcinogen and mechanisms. Therefore, each step has dose response and threshold characteristics that need to be considered for the entire neoplastic process to occur. We are faced to with an increasing number of new and untested chemicals that require proper risk evaluation for cancer. This coupled with the approach to reduce the animal usage in testing and the development of more molecular and cellular knowledge of the biological processes has put additional stress on developing modalities to properly perform cancer risk assessment. Although there is a tendency to streamline the process, it is important to note that proper risk evaluation is not easy and requires the input of multiple discipline and expertise. Understanding the mechanism(s) of chemical carcinogenesis in the context of the multistage model is important in developing scientifically based human risk evaluation of potential chemical carcinogens. In considering carcinogen risk evaluations several concepts need to be addressed based on Bradford Hills criteria. The development of a mode of action framework 20 years ago was an important step in utilizing the Bradford hill approach to chemical risk assessment. It is important that we as scientists don't default to poor science in an attempt to perform simpler and faster cancer risk assessment. The public and regulators in particular, need to h","PeriodicalId":23206,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology letters","volume":"411 ","pages":"Page S3"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145010838","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Are electric vehicles actually bad for the environment?","authors":"U. Olofsson,&nbsp;M. Aschner","doi":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.007","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.007","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The annual SOT/EUROTOX debate features leading toxicologists presenting contrasting perspectives on a controversial or pressing issue in toxicology. The debate began in the early 1990s and has been a highly anticipated event ever since.</div><div>This year, the debaters will address the proposition, “Are Electric Vehicles Actually Bad for the Environment? ”The debaters will introduce the issues that should be considered in weighing the costs and benefits of electric vehicles to the environment. Critical to this debate are considerations of emissions, natural resources, energy consumption, cost, and lifecycle. Relevant questions include:\u0000\t\t\t\t<ul><li><span>1</span><span><div>What are the most important factors for evaluating the environmental impact of gas versus electric vehicles?</div></span></li><li><span>2</span><span><div>What is the environmental impact of electric vehicle batteries?</div></span></li><li><span>3</span><span><div>What populations are most impacted in the switch to electric vehicles?</div></span></li><li><span>4</span><span><div>How can risk be compared across the entire lifecycle of the materials?</div></span></li><li><span>5</span><span><div>How do extraction processes for fossil fuels versus electric vehicle battery materials differ?</div></span></li></ul></div><div>In addition to inclusion as a Keynote Lecture at this meeting, this debate took place already (with the debaters having taken the reverse positions) in Orlando, US, during the 2025 SOT Annual Meeting, March 16–20.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23206,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology letters","volume":"411 ","pages":"Pages S2-S3"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145010840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Operationalising the exposome across environmental, consumer and industrial chemicals for public-health protection","authors":"D.A. Sarigianis","doi":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.010","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.010","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Purpose:&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;To demonstrate how the exposome can deliver decision-grade, life-course evidence across a broad chemical universe – encompassing environmental contaminants, consumer-product ingredients and industrial chemicals – and to show how this evidence translates into prevention targets and policy.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Methods:&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Building on developments and results of past and running exposome and chemical risk assessment projects (HEALS, ICARUS, URBANOME, PARC, ENVESOME), we propose a comprehensive methodological pipeline that integrates: (i) generic lifelong PBPK/PBBK models to translate multi-route, multi-chemical exposures (inhalation, ingestion, dermal) into internal dosimetry across developmental stages; parameterisation leverages QSAR/read-across, Bayesian calibration to human biomonitoring, and mixture kinetics. (ii) Human-centred exposure modelling that fuses wearables and indoor/outdoor multimedia fate with agent-based activity and product-use profiles, capturing microenvironments (home, work, transport) and socio-spatial heterogeneity. (iii) High-resolution mass spectrometry (suspect screening and non-target analysis), effect-directed assays, adductomics and multiomics readouts mapped to AOP networks to connect external dose with early biological effects. (iv) Causal mixture analytics (e.g., g-methods, BKMR, WQS) and target-trial emulation under compute-to-data/federated learning to respect governance of sensitive health and product data. (v) Decision engines that run intervention scenarios (safe and sustainable chemical innovation, substitution, reformulation, procurement, ventilation/filtration, dietary shifts) and rank options by attributable risk, benefit-cost and equity.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Results:&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Across European cohorts and cities, the pipeline resolves contributions from persistent and semi-volatile organics (PFAS, phthalates, bisphenols, flame retardants), pesticides, solvents, metals, indoor emissions and air pollutants, alongside chemical mixtures arising from food, drinking water, dust and personal-care products. It quantifies window-specific vulnerabilities (preconception, pregnancy, infancy, adolescence), sex-specific differences, and high-impact microenvironments. Federated analyses enable cross-site generalisation and full bias/calibration audits without centralising personal or proprietary data. Scenario tests show that targeted chemical substitution and in-door-environment controls often deliver larger near-term health gains than uniform ambient measures, while combined strategies maximise equity by reducing exposures in disadvantaged groups. Outputs include decision-grade internal-dose and effect-biomarker metrics, mixture-aware hazard indices and auditable uncertainty bounds suitable for regulatory uptake.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusions:&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;The exposome becomes operational for regulators and public-health agencies when mechanistic dosimetry, discovery-oriented analytics and d","PeriodicalId":23206,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology letters","volume":"411 ","pages":"Pages S3-S4"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145010846","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"CEC04-03 Tools to assess the quality of of kinetic publications","authors":"U. Gundert Remy","doi":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.027","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.027","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Assessment of the quality of studies is an important step when reviewing publications. Concerning reviewing studies, a long tradition exists in the medical field with the Cochrane Reviews which started in 1993 when the Cochrane Collaboration Group was built. The focus of Cochrane reviews is on efficacy of medicines, therapeutic interventions and diagnostic procedures by performing systematic reviews. The collaboration group developed methodologies for systematic reviews, among tools to assess the “quality” of a study, and they are developed further until today.</div><div>Quality assessment (called also: critical appraisal, and risk of bias assessment) refers to the assessment of the methodological quality of a study, on which the confidence in the results of the study is based.</div><div>The principles of assessing the methodological quality of a study have extended to further fields, e.g. in toxicology where systematic reviews are performed to assess the safety of a substance in current use e.g. as a food additive.</div><div>The tools which were developed are primarily meant and applicable for the assessment of effect studies in humans and also animals, particularly the integration of both streams of evidence (Hannes <em>et al.</em>, 2020; NTP OHAT, 2019).</div><div>Soliman <em>et al.</em> 2022 have published an inventory of quality markers which can be used to evaluate pharmacokinetic studies in humans. However, unfortunately, until today no appraisal tools are published which can be used for animal studies. No tools are also available in Guidelines addressing aspects of kinetic studies of OECD and ICH.</div><div>Thus, our group, a WG in the German Society of Toxicology, started to develop a tool suitable for assessing the quality of animal toxicokinetic studies.</div><div>The tool contains elements of quality assessment as in other tools, however adjusted to the aim to assessing toxicokinetic studies. The sections of the tool cover Study Design and Planning, Study Performance, Animal Housing and Feeding Conditions, Sample Collection and Chemical Analysis, Toxicokinetic Analysis and Data Reporting, and an Overall Evaluation. Every section is covered by several questions (sub-items) for which grades have to be given (3 for acceptable without restrictions, 2 for acceptable with restrictions, and 1 for existing with major flaws or not existing). Not applicable is also foreseen if the question is not relevant in the context of the study. The questions are given different weights, depending on their importance between 4 and 1. The final evaluation is performed by adding up the points (grades x weight), resulting in a final sum. The sum is related to the sum which could be reached if all questions were assessed as acceptable without restrictions. The percentage of the theoretical maximum score can be used as a benchmark for assessing the quality of the study and the confidence which can be given to the results.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23206,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology letters","volume":"411 ","pages":"Page S9"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145010753","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"CEC05-02 Risk Assessment Methodologies","authors":"D. Nikolopoulou","doi":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.031","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.toxlet.2025.07.031","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Risk assessment is a specialized field of applied science that involves reviewing scientific data in order to evaluate risks associated with certain hazards (EFSA glossary<span><span>^[1]</span></span>). A hands-on training activity on selected methodologies implemented in human health risk assessment will be offered during the Continuous Educational Course (CEC05) on <em>“Regulatory Toxicology in the context of the EU Legislations”</em>. The session will include an introductory presentation and practical exercise on methodologies used in risk assessment of pesticides in the frames of Regulation No. (EC) 1107/2009 and No. (EU) 528/2012. The aim of this activity is to describe how adversity is assessed in key regulatory studies, demonstrate how all available scientific data can be used in weight-of-evidence assessments integrating non-animal approaches. The identification of endocrine disruptors will be used as a specific example.</div><div>Weight of evidence (WoE) assessment is a structured approach for transparent and scientifically robust evaluation of the available data. Evaluation of endocrine-disrupting properties using comprehensive WoE assessment is outlined in the respective EFSA/ECHA Guidance (2018). The assessment process includes (i) collecting the evidence, by gathering data from various sources, such as <em>in vitro</em> and <em>in vivo</em> studies, databases, and computational models, to identify potential endocrine adversity and activity; (ii) developing lines of evidence, where collected data are organized into coherent lines taking into consideration reliability, relevance and consistency, and (iii) integrating the evidence by analyzing lines of evidence while assessing uncertainties.</div><div>New approach methodologies (NAMs) enhance the reliability of risk assessments while reducing the need for animal testing. NAMs may include but are not limited to Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOP), readacross, <em>in silico</em>, <em>in chemico</em>, and <em>in vitro</em> methodologies, omics and other systems biology-based approaches, and combinations of these in defined approaches or integrated approaches in testing and assessment</div><div>(IATAs). Distinguishing between threshold and non-threshold modes of action is critical in hazard characterisation of substances. Hazard characterisation of endocrine disruptors is a concept of scientific and regulatory debate. Development of quantitative AOPs (qAOPs) is expected to provide scientific support towards this approach.</div><div>Reviewing risk assessment methodologies including mapping of current practices, uptake of new scientific and technological advancements and identification of areas for improvement is a key task in the European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC). Overall, by integrating scientific concepts in practical exercises participants will enhance their understanding of transparent and reliable risk assessment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23206,"journal":{"name":"Toxicology letters","volume":"411 ","pages":"Pages S10-S11"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145010758","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}