{"topic_id":"EFSA_OpenFoodTox_3_animal_health_study_records","category":"efsa","context":"---\ntopic_id: EFSA_OpenFoodTox_3_animal_health_study_records\ncategory: efsa\ntitle: EFSA OpenFoodTox 3.0 animal health study records — 382 rows, 191 with unclassified species, livestock+pets endpoint dominant\nlang: en\nsource: OFT3.0_export_repository.xlsx\ndate_parsed: 2026-07-20\ntokens_estimated: 510\n---\n\nThe `END_STUDY_REC.AnimalHealth` sheet in EFSA OpenFoodTox 3.0\n(Zenodo record 19388272, DOI 10.5281/zenodo.19388272) contains 382\nstudy-level records covering toxicological effects on livestock and\npets. Each row follows the IUCLID 6 OECD Harmonised Template for\nanimal health endpoint studies (49 columns).\n\n## Endpoint classification\n\n| Endpoint | Count | Share |\n|----------|------:|------:|\n| toxic effects on livestock and pets | 382 | 100.0% |\n\nThe `AdministrativeData.Endpoint` field is identical across all 382\nrecords — every entry in this sheet covers the combined endpoint of\n\"toxic effects on livestock and pets\". This is the standard IUCLID\nendpoint descriptor used by EFSA FEEDAP dossiers for subchronic and\nchronic animal feeding studies, regardless of whether the test\nspecies is pet, livestock, or other.\n\n## Test species distribution\n\n| Species | Count | Share |\n|---------|------:|------:|\n| `other:` (species.Other not specified) | 191 | 50.0% |\n| swine | 99 | 25.9% |\n| horse | 33 | 8.6% |\n| turkey | 26 | 6.8% |\n| sheep | 23 | 6.0% |\n| goat | 4 | 1.0% |\n| rabbit | 4 | 1.0% |\n| cow | 2 | 0.5% |\n\n**Data quality flag**: 191 of 382 records (50.0%) carry the literal\nspecies value `other:` with the `MaterialsAndMethods.TestAnimals.Species.Other`\ncompanion field empty. This means EFSA did not specify which specific\nspecies (dog, cat, mouse, rat, etc.) was used in half of the animal\nhealth studies in the dataset. The species label is not directly\nrecoverable from `END_STUDY_REC.AnimalHealth` for these 191 records —\nthey would need to be cross-referenced back to the originating\ndossier via `Document UUID` → `Parent UUID` → `DOSSIER.Domain.FoodDomain`.\n\nAmong the records with specified species, **livestock dominates**:\nswine (99) + horse (33) + turkey (26) + sheep (23) + goat (4) + cow\n(2) = 187 records (96.6% of specified species). No dog or cat entries\nappear in the explicitly-classified species column.\n\n## Route of exposure\n\n| Route | Count | Share |\n|-------|------:|------:|\n| `other:` (route.Other not specified) | 276 | 72.3% |\n| (no route recorded) | 57 | 14.9% |\n| oral: applied on feed | 34 | 8.9% |\n| oral: unspecified | 11 | 2.9% |\n| oral: gavage | 3 | 0.8% |\n| oral: capsule | 1 | 0.3% |\n\n**49 of 382 records (12.8%) specify an oral route via feed or gavage or\ncapsule** — the most common path for feed-additive animal health\nstudies. The 276 records with route `other:` and no further\nspecification represent a data gap similar to the species column.\n\n## Duration of treatment\n\n| Duration unit | Count |\n|---------------|------:|\n| d (days) | 215 |\n| (no duration recorded) | 89 |\n| wk (weeks) | 78 |\n\nSubchronic studies (90 days / 13 weeks ≈ 215 day-records) dominate\nover chronic (52-week ≈ 78 week-records), consistent with OECD Test\nGuideline 408 (90-day rodent oral toxicity) which is the default\nfor feed additive dossiers.\n\n## Effect basis distribution (top 15)\n\n| Effect basis | Count |\n|--------------|------:|\n| `other:` (basis.Other not specified) | 212 |\n| food consumption and compound intake | 24 |\n| clinical biochemistry | 23 |\n| histopathology: non-neoplastic | 23 |\n| body weight and weight gain | 19 |\n| gross pathology | 17 |\n| mortality | 16 |\n| organ weights and organ / body weight ratios | 9 |\n| food efficiency | 8 |\n| clinical signs | 7 |\n| haematology | 6 |\n| serum/plasma biochemistry | 3 |\n| neuropathology | 2 |\n| histopathology: neoplastic | 2 |\n\nStandard OECD TG 408 endpoint set: clinical chemistry,\nhistopathology, body weight, food consumption, organ weights. The\n`other:` category (212 records) suggests EFSA did not always populate\nthe structured `basis` field — possibly recorded in\n`basis.Remarks` or `basis.Other` instead.\n\n## Pet food relevance\n\nThe \"toxic effects on livestock and pets\" endpoint label explicitly\nincludes pets. However, the dataset's species column only carries\n6.0% livestock-specified records — pet species (dog / cat) do not\nappear in the classified column. Cross-referencing the 191\nunclassified-species records back to originating dossiers via\n`Document UUID` → `DOSSIER.Domain.FoodDomain` would be needed to\nidentify which of the 382 records are pet-specific.\n\nSource: `toxicology/efsa/OFT3.0_export_repository.xlsx`,\nsheet `END_STUDY_REC.AnimalHealth` (382 rows × 49 cols). Pet species\nclassification requires parent-dossier join.","sources":[],"tokens_estimated":510,"generated_at":null,"tip":"Use /api/v1/topics to discover more topics. /api/v1/nutrient for precise single-point queries. /api/v1/cross_compare for 2-3 standard comparisons."}