Scientific literature monitoring
New scientific papers on your substances, searched every day and scored against the endpoints you care about.
ProjectsScientific literature monitoring
- Thea Langridge
- Kenji Sato
- Eleanor Price
| Ingredient | Endpoint | New papers | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| EHMC | Reproductive toxicity | 1 paper | Review |
| Propylparaben | Endocrine activity | 4 papers | Review |
| Homosalate | Dermal exposure | 3 papers | Tracking |
| Octocrylene | Aquatic toxicity | 5 papers | Tracking |
| Avobenzone | Aquatic toxicity | 3 papers | Tracking |
| Phenoxyethanol | Skin sensitisation | None new | Stable |
| Isopropyl myristate | Dermal exposure | None new | Stable |
EHMC Reproductive toxicity
Status: ReviewLinked to fewer mature eggs
- Study
- Cohort of 616 women in IVF
- Measured
- EHMC in urine
- SCCS
- Endocrine-active, safe up to 10%
Your expert signs off each endpoint
You get new papers on each substance by endpoint, monitoring scoped to your products, and a record of the follow-up each signal needs.
Approval
Illustrative projectThea Langridge
Status: ApprovedHead of Toxicology, after reading the new papers on both endpoints marked for review
Reproductive toxicity, 1 paper
Endocrine activity, 4 papers
Foresight does the research
Your team brings what only it knows, and your expert makes the call at each checkpoint.
Tasks
Status: In progressIllustrative project3 of 5 tasks done.
Share your substances and endpoints
Your team
Status: DoneDraft the scope
Foresight
Status: DoneAgree the scope
CheckpointStatus: ApprovedThea Langridge
Run the monitoring
Foresight
Status: In progressReview the signals
CheckpointStatus: Not startedThea Langridge
Kept current once it’s approved
Each day’s search asks the questions in your scope, so the scope has to keep up with your range and with regulators’ reviews of your substances. Substances that new papers raise outside it are listed as candidates to add. When a review moves, Foresight drafts a change to the scope, and your expert agrees it.
Monitoring
Illustrative projectWatching 3 reviews that can change the scope
- Status: To review
France’s REACH restriction on octocrylene in cosmetics
RAC adopted its opinion on France’s restriction by consensus in June 2026. Rechecked, octocrylene stays in scope, on Tracking, until the Commission decides.
SCCS review of salicylic acid from salicylate esters
CLP hazard classes for endocrine disruptors
What we need from you
Four things, shared at setup before the project starts.
Your substances
The substances you make or use, with their trade names and synonyms, so each search finds every name a paper might use.
Your endpoints
The scientific endpoints that matter to your customers and regulators, and which substance to watch for each.
Your products and uses
Where your substances end up, and papers or journals you already follow, so scoring knows what a relevant paper looks like.
Your approver
The person who agrees the scope and decides the follow-up for each signal.
What teams ask about this project
How do you decide which papers matter?
Each paper is first checked against your substances and endpoints, and those that don’t match are set aside. The rest are scored out of 100: up to 40 for how closely it studies your substance, 25 for how directly it addresses the endpoint, 15 for the strength of its evidence, 15 for your products and 5 for your brands. A human study scores higher on evidence than a cell study. A score of 70 or more is high relevance, and 40 to 69 medium.
Where do the papers come from?
Scientific literature sources, searched every day for each pairing of substance and endpoint in your scope. Every signal links to its paper, so your team can read the original. Papers those sources don’t hold, such as some regional journals and reports, aren’t covered.
Who checks the signals?
The person you name. They agree the scope before monitoring starts, and decide the follow-up for each paper marked for review. Each summary is written by AI and labelled as such, so your expert reads the paper before acting on it. These checks reduce the risk of error without removing it.
What happens when a rule changes?
When a regulatory review of your substances moves, such as an SCCS opinion or a REACH restriction, Foresight checks whether your scope still asks the right questions and puts any change to your expert. Once they agree it, the next search goes back 90 days under the new scope.
Does it replace a systematic literature review?
No. It watches for new papers against the scope you agreed, starting 90 days back. A systematic review for a safety assessment or a dossier needs its own protocol, databases and screening record. The signals show your team when one may be due.
What does it cost?
The price follows how many substances, endpoints and pairings the monitoring covers. You see it with the scope, before monitoring starts.
More ways to keep watch
Each runs the same way, with your expert approving the result.
Bring your substance list to a demo
Tell us the endpoints that matter and the journals you already follow. You’ll see the scope and the price before monitoring starts.
