ArticleScientific reports2025
Machine learning assisted classification RASAR modeling for the nephrotoxicity potential of a curated set of orally active drugs.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence in toxicology: current advances, challenges and future directions.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- Development of machine learning-based multi-task quantitative structure-activity relationship models for predicting toxicities in six human organ systems.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Projection-based molecular feature maps for CNN-driven nephrotoxicity prediction.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Drug Toxicity Prediction: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Toxics · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
We have adopted the classification Read-Across Structure-Activity Relationship (c-RASAR) approach in the present study for machine-learning (ML)-based model development from a recently reported curated dataset of nephrotoxicity potential of orally active drugs. We initially developed ML models using nine different algorithms separately on topological descriptors (referred to as simply "descriptors" in the subsequent sections of the manuscript) and MACCS fingerprints (referred to as "fingerprints" in the subsequent sections of the manuscript), thus generating 18 different ML QSAR models. Using the chemical spaces defined by the modeling descriptors and fingerprints, the similarity and error-based RASAR descriptors were computed, and the most discriminating RASAR descriptors were used to develop another set of 18 different ML c-RASAR models. All 36 models were cross-validated 20 times with a fivefold cross-validation strategy, and their predictivity was checked on the test set data. A multi-criteria decision-making strategy - the Sum of Ranking Differences (SRD) approach-was adopted to identify the best-performing model based on robustness and external validation parameters. This statistical analysis suggested that the c-RASAR models had an overall good performance, while the best-performing model was also a c-RASAR model (LDA c-RASAR model derived from topological descriptors, with MCC values of 0.229 and 0.431 for the training and test sets, respectively). This model was used to screen a true external data set prepared from the known nephrotoxic compounds of DrugBankDB, demonstrating good predictivity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.