An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation
To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Martin, Melissa M. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2022transfer abstract |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase - Song, Meijia ELSEVIER, 2020, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:93 ; year:2022 ; pages:0 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV059056983 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV059056983 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230626052133.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 221103s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001914.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV059056983 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0892-0362(22)00055-1 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 620 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 52.57 |2 bkl | ||
| 084 | |a 53.36 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Martin, Melissa M. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2022transfer abstract | |
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. | ||
| 520 | |a To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Baker, Nancy C. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Boyes, William K. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Carstens, Kelly E. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Culbreth, Megan E. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Gilbert, Mary E. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Harrill, Joshua A. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Nyffeler, Johanna |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Padilla, Stephanie |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Friedman, Katie Paul |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Shafer, Timothy J. |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |a Song, Meijia ELSEVIER |t Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase |d 2020 |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV003689301 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:93 |g year:2022 |g pages:0 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 52.57 |j Energiespeicherung |q VZ |
| 936 | b | k | |a 53.36 |j Energiedirektumwandler |j elektrische Energiespeicher |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 93 |j 2022 |h 0 | ||
| author_variant |
m m m mm mmm |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
martinmelissambakernancycboyeswilliamkca:2022----:nxetrvnieaueeiwfeaiehmclfreeomnanuooi |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2022transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
52.57 53.36 |
| publishDate |
2022 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001914.pica (DE-627)ELV059056983 (ELSEVIER)S0892-0362(22)00055-1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 VZ 52.57 bkl 53.36 bkl Martin, Melissa M. verfasserin aut An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation 2022transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. Baker, Nancy C. oth Boyes, William K. oth Carstens, Kelly E. oth Culbreth, Megan E. oth Gilbert, Mary E. oth Harrill, Joshua A. oth Nyffeler, Johanna oth Padilla, Stephanie oth Friedman, Katie Paul oth Shafer, Timothy J. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Song, Meijia ELSEVIER Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase 2020 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV003689301 volume:93 year:2022 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.57 Energiespeicherung VZ 53.36 Energiedirektumwandler elektrische Energiespeicher VZ AR 93 2022 0 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001914.pica (DE-627)ELV059056983 (ELSEVIER)S0892-0362(22)00055-1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 VZ 52.57 bkl 53.36 bkl Martin, Melissa M. verfasserin aut An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation 2022transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. Baker, Nancy C. oth Boyes, William K. oth Carstens, Kelly E. oth Culbreth, Megan E. oth Gilbert, Mary E. oth Harrill, Joshua A. oth Nyffeler, Johanna oth Padilla, Stephanie oth Friedman, Katie Paul oth Shafer, Timothy J. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Song, Meijia ELSEVIER Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase 2020 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV003689301 volume:93 year:2022 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.57 Energiespeicherung VZ 53.36 Energiedirektumwandler elektrische Energiespeicher VZ AR 93 2022 0 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001914.pica (DE-627)ELV059056983 (ELSEVIER)S0892-0362(22)00055-1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 VZ 52.57 bkl 53.36 bkl Martin, Melissa M. verfasserin aut An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation 2022transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. Baker, Nancy C. oth Boyes, William K. oth Carstens, Kelly E. oth Culbreth, Megan E. oth Gilbert, Mary E. oth Harrill, Joshua A. oth Nyffeler, Johanna oth Padilla, Stephanie oth Friedman, Katie Paul oth Shafer, Timothy J. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Song, Meijia ELSEVIER Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase 2020 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV003689301 volume:93 year:2022 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.57 Energiespeicherung VZ 53.36 Energiedirektumwandler elektrische Energiespeicher VZ AR 93 2022 0 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001914.pica (DE-627)ELV059056983 (ELSEVIER)S0892-0362(22)00055-1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 VZ 52.57 bkl 53.36 bkl Martin, Melissa M. verfasserin aut An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation 2022transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. Baker, Nancy C. oth Boyes, William K. oth Carstens, Kelly E. oth Culbreth, Megan E. oth Gilbert, Mary E. oth Harrill, Joshua A. oth Nyffeler, Johanna oth Padilla, Stephanie oth Friedman, Katie Paul oth Shafer, Timothy J. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Song, Meijia ELSEVIER Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase 2020 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV003689301 volume:93 year:2022 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.57 Energiespeicherung VZ 53.36 Energiedirektumwandler elektrische Energiespeicher VZ AR 93 2022 0 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 doi /cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001914.pica (DE-627)ELV059056983 (ELSEVIER)S0892-0362(22)00055-1 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 VZ 52.57 bkl 53.36 bkl Martin, Melissa M. verfasserin aut An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation 2022transfer abstract nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. Baker, Nancy C. oth Boyes, William K. oth Carstens, Kelly E. oth Culbreth, Megan E. oth Gilbert, Mary E. oth Harrill, Joshua A. oth Nyffeler, Johanna oth Padilla, Stephanie oth Friedman, Katie Paul oth Shafer, Timothy J. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Song, Meijia ELSEVIER Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase 2020 Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV003689301 volume:93 year:2022 pages:0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U 52.57 Energiespeicherung VZ 53.36 Energiedirektumwandler elektrische Energiespeicher VZ AR 93 2022 0 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:93 year:2022 pages:0 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:93 year:2022 pages:0 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Energiespeicherung Energiedirektumwandler elektrische Energiespeicher |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| dewey-raw |
620 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Martin, Melissa M. @@aut@@ Baker, Nancy C. @@oth@@ Boyes, William K. @@oth@@ Carstens, Kelly E. @@oth@@ Culbreth, Megan E. @@oth@@ Gilbert, Mary E. @@oth@@ Harrill, Joshua A. @@oth@@ Nyffeler, Johanna @@oth@@ Padilla, Stephanie @@oth@@ Friedman, Katie Paul @@oth@@ Shafer, Timothy J. @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2022-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV003689301 |
| dewey-sort |
3620 |
| id |
ELV059056983 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV059056983</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626052133.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">221103s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001914.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV059056983</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0892-0362(22)00055-1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">52.57</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">53.36</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Martin, Melissa M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Baker, Nancy C.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Boyes, William K.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carstens, Kelly E.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Culbreth, Megan E.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gilbert, Mary E.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Harrill, Joshua A.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nyffeler, Johanna</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Padilla, Stephanie</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Friedman, Katie Paul</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shafer, Timothy J.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Song, Meijia ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase</subfield><subfield code="d">2020</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV003689301</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:93</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">52.57</subfield><subfield code="j">Energiespeicherung</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">53.36</subfield><subfield code="j">Energiedirektumwandler</subfield><subfield code="j">elektrische Energiespeicher</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">93</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Martin, Melissa M. |
| spellingShingle |
Martin, Melissa M. ddc 620 bkl 52.57 bkl 53.36 An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation |
| authorStr |
Martin, Melissa M. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV003689301 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
620 - Engineering & allied operations |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
620 VZ 52.57 bkl 53.36 bkl An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation |
| topic |
ddc 620 bkl 52.57 bkl 53.36 |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 620 bkl 52.57 bkl 53.36 |
| topic_browse |
ddc 620 bkl 52.57 bkl 53.36 |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
n c b nc ncb w k b wk wkb k e c ke kec m e c me mec m e g me meg j a h ja jah j n jn s p sp k p f kp kpf t j s tj tjs |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV003689301 |
| dewey-tens |
620 - Engineering |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV003689301 |
| title |
An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV059056983 (ELSEVIER)S0892-0362(22)00055-1 |
| title_full |
An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation |
| author_sort |
Martin, Melissa M. |
| journal |
Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase |
| journalStr |
Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2022 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
0 |
| author_browse |
Martin, Melissa M. |
| container_volume |
93 |
| class |
620 VZ 52.57 bkl 53.36 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Martin, Melissa M. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 |
| dewey-full |
620 |
| title_sort |
an expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (dnt) in vitro assay evaluation |
| title_auth |
An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation |
| abstract |
To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. |
| abstractGer |
To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U |
| title_short |
An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Baker, Nancy C. Boyes, William K. Carstens, Kelly E. Culbreth, Megan E. Gilbert, Mary E. Harrill, Joshua A. Nyffeler, Johanna Padilla, Stephanie Friedman, Katie Paul Shafer, Timothy J. |
| author2Str |
Baker, Nancy C. Boyes, William K. Carstens, Kelly E. Culbreth, Megan E. Gilbert, Mary E. Harrill, Joshua A. Nyffeler, Johanna Padilla, Stephanie Friedman, Katie Paul Shafer, Timothy J. |
| ppnlink |
ELV003689301 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth oth oth oth oth oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T20:50:47.198Z |
| _version_ |
1803864293715738624 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV059056983</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230626052133.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">221103s2022 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">/cbs_pica/cbs_olc/import_discovery/elsevier/einzuspielen/GBV00000000001914.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV059056983</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0892-0362(22)00055-1</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">52.57</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">53.36</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Martin, Melissa M.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">An expert-driven literature review of “negative” chemicals for developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) in vitro assay evaluation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">To date, approximately 200 chemicals have been tested in US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) guideline studies, leaving thousands of chemicals without traditional animal information on DNT hazard potential. To address this data gap, a battery of in vitro DNT new approach methodologies (NAMs) has been proposed. Evaluation of the performance of this battery will increase the confidence in its use to determine DNT chemical hazards. One approach to evaluate DNT NAM performance is to use a set of chemicals to evaluate sensitivity and specificity. Since a list of chemicals with potential evidence of in vivo DNT has been established, this study aims to develop a curated list of “negative” chemicals for inclusion in a “DNT NAM evaluation set”. A workflow, including a literature search followed by an expert-driven literature review, was used to systematically screen 39 chemicals for lack of DNT effect. Expert panel members evaluated the scientific robustness of relevant studies to inform chemical categorizations. Following review, the panel discussed each chemical and made categorical determinations of “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, or “Indeterminate” reflecting acceptance, lack of suitability, or uncertainty given specific limitations and considerations, respectively. The panel determined that 10, 22, and 7 chemicals met the criteria for “Favorable”, “Not Favorable”, and “Indeterminate”, for use as negatives in a DNT NAM evaluation set. Ultimately, this approach not only supports DNT NAM performance evaluation but also highlights challenges in identifying large numbers of negative DNT chemicals.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Baker, Nancy C.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Boyes, William K.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Carstens, Kelly E.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Culbreth, Megan E.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gilbert, Mary E.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Harrill, Joshua A.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Nyffeler, Johanna</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Padilla, Stephanie</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Friedman, Katie Paul</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Shafer, Timothy J.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="a">Song, Meijia ELSEVIER</subfield><subfield code="t">Boosting electrochemical reactivity of tin as an anode for Mg ion batteries through introduction of second phase</subfield><subfield code="d">2020</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV003689301</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:93</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2022.107117</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">52.57</subfield><subfield code="j">Energiespeicherung</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">53.36</subfield><subfield code="j">Energiedirektumwandler</subfield><subfield code="j">elektrische Energiespeicher</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">93</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="h">0</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399699 |