{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010972933430870519, 'fraction_numerical': 0.000731528895391368, 'mean_word_length': 5.483412322274882, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Animals and the 3Rs in toxicology research and testing

Despite efforts to eliminate the use of animals in testing and the availability of many accepted alternative methods, animals are still widely used for toxicological research and testing. While research using in vitro and computational models has dramatically increased in recent years, such efforts have not yet measurably impacted animal use for regulatory testing and are not likely to do so for many years or even decades. Until regulatory authorities have accepted test methods that can totally replace animals and these are fully implemented, large numbers of animals will continue to be used and many will continue to experience significant pain and distress. In order to positively impact the welfare of these animals, accepted alternatives must be implemented, and efforts must be directed at eliminating pain and distress and reducing animal numbers. Animal pain and distress can be reduced by earlier predictive humane endpoints, pain-relieving medications, and supportive clinical care, while sequential testing and routine use of integrated testing and decision strategies can reduce animal numbers. Applying advances in science and technology to the development of scientifically sound alternative testing models and strategies can improve animal welfare and further reduce and replace animal use.