Back

A Systematic Analysis of Read-Across Adaptations in Testing Proposal Evaluations by the European Chemicals Agency

Roe, H.; Tsai, H.-H. D.; Ball, N.; Wright, F. A.; Chiu, W.; Rusyn, I.

2024-08-30 pharmacology and toxicology
10.1101/2024.08.29.610278 bioRxiv
Show abstract

An important element of the European Unions "Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals" (REACH) regulation is the evaluation by the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) of testing proposals submitted by the registrants to address data gaps in standard REACH information requirements. The registrants may propose adaptations, and ECHA evaluates the reasoning and issues a written decision. Read-across is a common adaptation type, yet it is widely assumed that ECHA often does not agree that the justifications are adequate to waive standard testing requirements. From 2008 to August 2023, a total of 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. Read-across hypotheses were standardized into 17 assessment elements (AEs); each submission was classified as to the AEs relied upon by the registrants and by ECHA. Data was analyzed for patterns and associations. Testing Proposal Evaluations (TPEs) with adaptations comprised 23% (353) of the total; analogue (168) or group (136) read-across adaptations were most common. Of 304 read-across-containing TPEs, 49% were accepted; the odds of acceptance were significantly greater for group read-across submissions. The data was analyzed by Annex (i.e., tonnage), test guideline study, read-across hypothesis AEs, as well as target and source substance types and their structural similarity. While most ECHA decisions with both positive and negative decisions on whether the proposed read-across was adequate were context-specific, a number of significant associations were identified that influence the odds of acceptance. Overall, this analysis provides an unbiased 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.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Archives of Toxicology
14 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
22.8%
2
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 9%
18.8%
3
Environmental Science & Technology
64 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
4.9%
4
Pest Management Science
32 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
5
Environment International
42 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
3.6%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 35%
3.6%
7
Chemosphere
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.6%
8
Toxicological Sciences
38 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.1%
9
Environmental Health Perspectives
17 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.6%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.7%
11
NeuroToxicology
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
12
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
216 papers in training set
Top 6%
1.3%
13
Frontiers in Pharmacology
100 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.2%
14
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.2%
15
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
16
Cell Reports Methods
141 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
17
Systematic Reviews
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
18
Scientific Data
174 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
19
GeoHealth
10 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.0%
20
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
14 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
21
Clinical and Translational Science
21 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.8%
22
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.7%
24
ACS Omega
90 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
25
MethodsX
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.5%
26
ACS ES&T Water
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.5%
27
Data in Brief
13 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.5%