Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38758610›Full record

ReviewChemical research in toxicology2024

Advancing Drug Safety in Drug Development: Bridging Computational Predictions for Enhanced Toxicity Prediction.

Ana M B Amorim, Luiz F Piochi, Ana T Gaspar, António J Preto, Nícia Rosário-Ferreira, Irina S Moreira

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Chemical research in toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. AI/ML-based computational models for toxicity prediction.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Artificial Intelligence Across the Drug Development Lifecycle.Medical sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  11. Development andACS omega · 2026
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ana M B AmorimDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Calçada Martim de Freitas, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0009-0008-2595-6662
Luiz F PiochiDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Calçada Martim de Freitas, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal.
Ana T GasparDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Calçada Martim de Freitas, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal.
António J PretoCNC-UC─Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Calçada Martim de Freitas, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-4203-2230
Nícia Rosário-FerreiraCNC-UC─Center for Neuroscience and Cell Biology, University of Coimbra, Calçada Martim de Freitas, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-7225-9287
Irina S MoreiraDepartment of Life Sciences, University of Coimbra, Calçada Martim de Freitas, 3000-456 Coimbra, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0003-2970-5250

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The attrition rate of drugs in clinical trials is generally quite high, with estimates suggesting that approximately 90% of drugs fail to make it through the process. The identification of unexpected toxicity issues during preclinical stages is a significant factor contributing to this high rate of failure. These issues can have a major impact on the success of a drug and must be carefully considered throughout the development process. These late-stage rejections or withdrawals of drug candidates significantly increase the costs associated with drug development, particularly when toxicity is detected during clinical trials or after market release. Understanding drug-biological target interactions is essential for evaluating compound toxicity and safety, as well as predicting therapeutic effects and potential off-target effects that could lead to toxicity. This will enable scientists to predict and assess the safety profiles of drug candidates more accurately. Evaluation of toxicity and safety is a critical aspect of drug development, and biomolecules, particularly proteins, play vital roles in complex biological networks and often serve as targets for various chemicals. Therefore, a better understanding of these interactions is crucial for the advancement of drug development. The development of computational methods for evaluating protein-ligand interactions and predicting toxicity is emerging as a promising approach that adheres to the 3Rs principles (replace, reduce, and refine) and has garnered significant attention in recent years. In this review, we present a thorough examination of the latest breakthroughs in drug toxicity prediction, highlighting the significance of drug-target binding affinity in anticipating and mitigating possible adverse effects. In doing so, we aim to contribute to the development of more effective and secure drugs.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID38758610
PMCPMC11187637

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.