欧洲化学品管理局对测试提案评估中的读取-交叉适应性进行系统分析。

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Hannah M Roe, Han-Hsaun D Tsai, Nicholas Ball, Fred A Wright, Weihsueh A Chiu, Ivan Rusyn
{"title":"欧洲化学品管理局对测试提案评估中的读取-交叉适应性进行系统分析。","authors":"Hannah M Roe, Han-Hsaun D Tsai, Nicholas Ball, Fred A Wright, Weihsueh A Chiu, Ivan Rusyn","doi":"10.14573/altex.2408292","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An essential aspect of the EU's \"Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals\" (REACH) regulation is the European Chemicals Agency's (ECHA) evaluation of testing proposals submitted by registrants to address data gaps. Registrants may propose adaptations, such as read-across, to waive standard testing; however, it is widely believed that ECHA often finds justifications for read-across hypotheses inadequate. From 2008 to August 2023, 2,630 testing proposals were submitted to ECHA; of these, 1,538 had published decisions that were systematically evaluated in this study. Each document was manually reviewed, and information extracted for further analyses focusing on 17 assessment elements (AEs) from the Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) and testing proposal evaluations (TPE). Each submission was classified as to the AEs relied upon by the registrants and by ECHA. Data was analyzed for patterns and associations. Adaptations were included in 23% (350) of proposals, with analogue (168) and group (136) read-across being most common. Of 304 read-across hypotheses, 49% were accepted, with group read-across showing significantly higher odds of acceptance. Data analysis examined factors such as tonnage (Annex), test guidelines, hypothesis AEs, and structural similarities of target and source substances. While decisions were often context-specific, several significant associations influencing acceptance emerged. Overall, this analysis provides a comprehensive overview of 15 years of experience with testing proposal-specific read-across adaptations by both registrants and ECHA. These data will inform future submissions as they identify most critical AEs to increase the odds of read-across acceptance.</p>","PeriodicalId":51231,"journal":{"name":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic analysis of read-across adaptations in testing proposal evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency.\",\"authors\":\"Hannah M Roe, Han-Hsaun D Tsai, Nicholas Ball, Fred A Wright, Weihsueh A Chiu, Ivan Rusyn\",\"doi\":\"10.14573/altex.2408292\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>An essential aspect of the EU's \\\"Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals\\\" (REACH) regulation is the European Chemicals Agency's (ECHA) evaluation of testing proposals submitted by registrants to address data gaps. Registrants may propose adaptations, such as read-across, to waive standard testing; however, it is widely believed that ECHA often finds justifications for read-across hypotheses inadequate. From 2008 to August 2023, 2,630 testing proposals were submitted to ECHA; of these, 1,538 had published decisions that were systematically evaluated in this study. Each document was manually reviewed, and information extracted for further analyses focusing on 17 assessment elements (AEs) from the Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) and testing proposal evaluations (TPE). Each submission was classified as to the AEs relied upon by the registrants and by ECHA. Data was analyzed for patterns and associations. Adaptations were included in 23% (350) of proposals, with analogue (168) and group (136) read-across being most common. Of 304 read-across hypotheses, 49% were accepted, with group read-across showing significantly higher odds of acceptance. Data analysis examined factors such as tonnage (Annex), test guidelines, hypothesis AEs, and structural similarities of target and source substances. While decisions were often context-specific, several significant associations influencing acceptance emerged. Overall, this analysis provides a comprehensive overview of 15 years of experience with testing proposal-specific read-across adaptations by both registrants and ECHA. These data will inform future submissions as they identify most critical AEs to increase the odds of read-across acceptance.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51231,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2408292\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14573/altex.2408292","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧盟 "化学品注册、评估、许可和限制"(REACH)法规的一个重要方面是欧洲化学品管理局(ECHA)对注册人提交的测试建议进行评估,以解决数据缺口问题。注册人可以提出调整建议,如 "交叉阅读"(read-across),以放弃标准测试;但人们普遍认为,欧洲化学品管理局经常发现 "交叉阅读 "假设的理由不充分。从 2008 年到 2023 年 8 月,共向欧洲化学品管理局提交了 2,630 份测试提案;其中 1,538 份已公布决定,本研究对其进行了系统评估。每份文件都经过人工审核,并提取信息进行进一步分析,重点关注 "交叉阅读评估框架"(RAAF)和 "测试提案评估"(TPE)中的 17 个评估要素(AE)。根据注册人和 ECHA 依赖的 AE,对每份呈文进行了分类。对数据进行了模式和关联分析。23%(350 份)的提案中包含了适应性,其中最常见的是模拟(168 份)和群体(136 份)交叉阅读。在 304 项 "读取交叉 "假设中,49% 被接受,而 "分组读取交叉 "被接受的几率明显更高。数据分析研究了吨位(附件)、测试指南、假设的 AE 以及目标物质和来源物质的结构相似性等因素。虽然决定往往取决于具体情况,但还是出现了一些影响接受程度的重要关联。总之,这项分析全面概述了 15 年来注册人和欧洲化学品管理局(ECHA)在测试特定于提案的可读交叉适应性方面的经验。这些数据将为今后提交的申请提供参考,因为它们可以确定最关键的预期效果,从而提高接受可读性的几率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Systematic analysis of read-across adaptations in testing proposal evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency.

An essential aspect of the EU's "Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals" (REACH) regulation is the European Chemicals Agency's (ECHA) evaluation of testing proposals submitted by registrants to address data gaps. Registrants may propose adaptations, such as read-across, to waive standard testing; however, it is widely believed that ECHA often finds justifications for read-across hypotheses inadequate. From 2008 to August 2023, 2,630 testing proposals were submitted to ECHA; of these, 1,538 had published decisions that were systematically evaluated in this study. Each document was manually reviewed, and information extracted for further analyses focusing on 17 assessment elements (AEs) from the Read-Across Assessment Framework (RAAF) and testing proposal evaluations (TPE). Each submission was classified as to the AEs relied upon by the registrants and by ECHA. Data was analyzed for patterns and associations. Adaptations were included in 23% (350) of proposals, with analogue (168) and group (136) read-across being most common. Of 304 read-across hypotheses, 49% were accepted, with group read-across showing significantly higher odds of acceptance. Data analysis examined factors such as tonnage (Annex), test guidelines, hypothesis AEs, and structural similarities of target and source substances. While decisions were often context-specific, several significant associations influencing acceptance emerged. Overall, this analysis provides a comprehensive overview of 15 years of experience with testing proposal-specific read-across adaptations by both registrants and ECHA. These data will inform future submissions as they identify most critical AEs to increase the odds of read-across acceptance.

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
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation
Altex-Alternatives To Animal Experimentation MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
7.70
自引率
8.90%
发文量
89
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: ALTEX publishes original articles, short communications, reviews, as well as news and comments and meeting reports. Manuscripts submitted to ALTEX are evaluated by two expert reviewers. The evaluation takes into account the scientific merit of a manuscript and its contribution to animal welfare and the 3R principle.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信