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}
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.
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.