Zoeken

References

  1. Krebs A, et al. (2019). Template for the description of cell-based toxicological test methods to allow evaluation and regulatory use of the data. Altex.;36(4):682-699.

  2. OECD. (2014). Guidance Document for Describing Non-Guideline In Vitro Test Methods. Vol. 211. Series on Testing and Assessment.

  3. Roth N, et al. (2021). Development of the SciRAP Approach for Evaluating the Reliability and Relevance of in vitro Toxicity Data. Front Toxicol.;3:746430.

  4. RIVER working group. (2023). Reporting In Vitro Experiments Responsibly – the RIVER Recommendations.

  5. OECD. (2021). Guiding Principles on Good Practices for the Availability/Distribution of Protected Elements in OECD Test Guidelines. Series on Testing and Assessment. ;298.

  6. Griesinger C, et al. (2016). Validation of Alternative In Vitro Methods to Animal Testing: Concepts, Challenges, Processes and Tools. Adv Exp Med Biol.;856:65-132.

  7. Gourmelon A, Delrue N. (2016). Validation in Support of Internationally Harmonised OECD Test Guidelines for Assessing the Safety of Chemicals. Adv Exp Med Biol.;856:9-32.

  8. OECD. Guidance Document on the Validation and International Acceptance of New or Updated Test Methods for Hazard Assessment. 2005. Series on Testing and Assessment.

  9. OECD. (2023). Extracting the essential principles of validation and good in vitro method practices for NAMs. Workshop on emerging technologies and opportunities for the OECD Test Guidelines Programme.

  10. OECD. (2023). Becoming familiar with method readiness evaluation. OECD webinars on Testing and Assessment Methodologies.

  11. Schiffelers MJ, et al. (2014). Regulatory acceptance and use of 3R models for pharmaceuticals and chemicals: expert opinions on the state of affairs and the way forward. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. ;69(1):41-8.

  12. OECD. (2023). Scientific & test method readiness of emerging technologies: criteria, examples & experience. Workshop on emerging technologies and opportunities for the OECD Test Guidelines Programme.

  13. Bas A, et al. (2021). Understanding the Development, Standardization, and Validation Process of Alternative In Vitro Test Methods for Regulatory Approval from a Researcher Perspective. Small.;17(15):e2006027.

  14. Bleekers E. (2020). From Science to Regulation : the NANOHarmony White Paper on Test Guideline Development. NANOHarmony;.

  15. Gourmelon A, et al. (2024). The benefits of validation of methods for toxicity testing outweigh its costs. ALTEX.

  16. Baumgartl-Simons C, Hohensee C. (2019). How Can the Final Goal of Completely Replacing   Animal Procedures Successfully Be Achieved? Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change:88-123:chap 3. Human-Animal Studies; vol. 22.

  17. Spielmann H, Liebsch M. (2001). Lessons learned from validation of in vitro toxicity test: from failure to acceptance into regulatory practice. Toxicol In Vitro. ;15(4-5):585-90.

  18. Crouzet T, et al. (2023). ReadEDTest: A tool to assess the readiness of in vitro test methods under development for identifying endocrine disruptors. Environ Int.;174:107910.

  19. Archibald K, et al. (2019). Replacing Animal Tests to Improve Safety for Humans. Animal Experimentation : Working Towards a Paradigm Change.:417-442:chap 18. Human-animal studies; vol. 22.

  20. OECD. Training and orientation on validation of methods at the OECD. OECD webinars on Testing and Assessment Methodologies2023.

  21. Coecke S, et al. (2016). Practical Aspects of Designing and Conducting Validation Studies Involving Multi-study Trials. Adv Exp Med Biol.;856:133-163.

  22. EMA. (2016). Guideline on the principles of regulatory acceptance of 3Rs (replacement, reduction, refinement) testing approaches.

  23. Bal-Price A, et al. (2018). Recommendation on test readiness criteria for new approach methods in toxicology: Exemplified for developmental neurotoxicity. Altex.;35(3):306-352.

  24. Zgheib E, et al. (2021). Identification of non-validated endocrine disrupting chemical characterization methods by screening of the literature using artificial intelligence and by database exploration. Environ Int. ;154:106574.

  25. Cöllen E, et al. (2024). Elements and development processes for test methods in toxicology and human health-relevant life science research. Altex.;41(1):142-148.

  26. OECD. (2023). Identifying reference chemicals & building curated datasets: approaches, issues and learnings. Workshop on emerging technologies and opportunities for the OECD Test Guidelines Programme.

  27. OECD. (2023). Report on the WNT Workshop how to prepare the Test Guidelines Programme for emerging technologies. Series on Testing and Assessment.

  28. Schmeisser S, et al. (2023). New approach methodologies in human regulatory toxicology - Not if, but how and when! Environ Int. ;178:108082.

  29. Patterson EA, et al. (2021). The role of validation in establishing the scientific credibility of predictive toxicology approaches intended for regulatory application. Comput Toxicol.17:100144.

  30. Punt A, et al. (2018). Expert opinions on the acceptance of alternative methods in food safety evaluations: Formulating recommendations to increase acceptance of non-animal methods for kinetics. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. ;92:145-151.

  31. EMA. (2019). From laboratory to patient: the journey of a medicine assessed by EMA.

  32. Ribeiro AJS, et al. (2019). Liver Microphysiological Systems for Predicting and Evaluating Drug Effects. Clin Pharmacol Ther.;106(1):139-147.

  33. Wilkinson M. (2019). The potential of organ on chip technology for replacing animal testing. Animal Experimentation: Working Towards a Paradigm Change. Brill;:639-653.

  34. Taylor K. (2019). Recent developments in alternatives to animal testing. Animal experimentation: working towards a paradigm change:585-609.

  35. Profisee. (n.d.). What is data standardization?  

  36. Data Ladder. (n.d.). Data standardization guide: Types, benefits, and process.

  37. FasterCapital. (n.d.).The importance of data validation and standardization.

  38. Standards Council of Canada. (n.d.). Benefits of applying standards.

  39. 1WorldSync. (n.d.). Standardizing and validating your data.

  40. 12Build. (n.d.). The benefits of standardization in construction.

  41. Bas A, et al. (2021). Understanding the Development, Standardization, and Validation Process of Alternative In Vitro Test Methods for Regulatory Approval from a Researcher Perspective. Small. Apr;17(15):e2006027.

  42. RIVM. (2024). Landscape new approach methodologies (NAMs) safety assessment pharmaceutical products v2.

  43. van der Zalm, A.J., et al. (2022). A framework for establishing scientific confidence in new approach methodologies. Arch Toxicol 96, 2865–2879

  44. National Toxicology Program. (2024). Validation workgroup report.

  45. Cattaneo, I., et al. (2023). Implementing New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in food safety assessments: Strategic objectives and actions taken by the European Food Safety Authority, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Volume 133, P. 277-290, ISSN 0924-2244

  46. NEN. (2024). FG OoC Roadmap.

  47. OECD. (n.d.). Testing of chemicals.

  48. Wilkinson, M. D., et al. (2016). The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship.  Scientific Data, 3, 160018. 

  49. EFSA, et al. (2022). New Approach Methodologies. EFSA Supporting Publications 2022: 19(5):e200502. 8 pp.

  50. EMA. (n.d.). Scientific Advice Working Party (SAWP).

  51. CPBT. (n.d.). Centrum voor Proefdiervrije Biomedische Translatie.

  52. Browne, P. (2023). OECD activities on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs). European Chemicals Agency.

  53. ECHA. (2023). New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) workshop report: June 2023.

  54. OECD. (2005). Guidance Document on the Validation and International Acceptance of New or Updated Test Methods for Hazard Assessment, OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, No. 34, OECD Publishing, Paris

  55. OECD. (n.d.). Test guidelines.

  56. European Food Safety Authority. (2022). Final minutes: EFSA workshop on NAMs for nano. EFSA. [Appendix 1]

  57. European Food Safety Authority. (2022). Final minutes of the EFSA workshop on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) for nanomaterial risk assessment (NAMS4NANO). EFSA

  58. FAIR Connect. (n.d.). About.

  59. EU-PARC. (n.d.). PARC FAIR Data Hub.

  60. Tarazona, J., et al. (2022). Theme (Concept) Paper - New Approach Methodologies. EFSA Supporting Publications, 19(5), e200502.

  61. Arcella, D. (2024). Innovation in food risk assessment methodology. EFSA stakeholder workshop.

  62. FAST. (n.d.). About FAST Forum.

  63. OECD. (2024). Work on Test Guidelines.

  64. NanoHarmony. (z.d.). Useful resources. Test Guideline Development.

  65. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). (2024). Overview of ICH.

  66. International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). (z.d.). Formal ICH procedure.

  67. European Commission. (n.d.). Validation and submission process. The Joint Research Centre: EU Science Hub.

  68. PEPPER. (n.d.). Call for tender.

  69. Hartung, et al. (2004). A Modular Approach to the ECVAM principles on test validity. Alternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA. 32. 467-72.

Steps

FundingResearch & Development ValidationAcceptanceIn practice

Quick links

NewsEventsNAM Network ReferencesAbout usContact

The NAM Navigator was commissioned by TPI under the direction of the More Knowledge with Fewer Animals program of ZonMw.

NAM Navigator © Copyright 2025

DisclaimerColofon