ArticleJournal of advanced research2026
A machine learning platform for genotype-specific cardiotoxicity risk prediction using patient-derived iPSC-CMs.
Article in Journal of advanced research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Induced pluripotent stem cells from discovery to translation.Nature medicine · 2026Review
- Integrating high-fidelity hiPSC-cardiomyocytes with AI-driven modeling for enhanced proarrhythmic risk assessment.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Humanized hiPSC Platforms for I/R Injury: Advancing Toward Precision Cardioprotection.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2026Review
- Organ-on-a-Chip and Lab-on-a-Chip Technologies in Cardiac Tissue Engineering.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Stage-specific cardiotoxicity induced by bisphenol A using human pluripotent stem cell-derived 2D- and 3D-cardiomyocyte models.Journal of tissue engineeringArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDrug-induced Torsades de Pointes (TdP) has led to withdrawal of several drugs from the market. Individuals with inherited cardiac channelopathies are at increased risk due to their underlying electrophysiological vulnerability.
objectivesWe aimed to develop a machine learning (ML) platform for disease-specific cardiotoxicity using patient-specific induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (iPSC-CMs) combined with high-throughput microelectrode array (MEA) recordings.
methodsWe generated genetically confirmed and phenotypically characterized iPSC-CMs from patients with long QT syndrome (LQTS) and Brugada syndrome (BrS). These cells were exposed to 28 compounds with varying TdP risk levels. Electrophysiological responses including field potential duration, corrected field potential duration, beat period and amplitude were measured using MEA. These data were used to train and compare machine learning models, including artificial neural networks (ANN), random forest, and XGBoost. Model performance was optimized by grid search and evaluated by fivefold cross-validation.
resultsThe ANN model trained on LQTS iPSC-CMs achieved the highest accuracy (area under the curve [AUC] = 0.94). BrS cell lines showed hypersensitivity to calcium channel blockers, while LQTS lines exhibited heightened responses to potassium channel inhibitors. Previously ambiguous compounds were reclassified based on disease-specific electrophysiological profiles, demonstrating the platform's utility in genotype-specific cardiotoxicity risk assessment.
conclusionThis study presents a scalable and individualized approach for cardiotoxicity screening using well-characterized patient-derived iPSC-CMs. The platform enhances drug safety prediction, supports regulatory evaluation, and advances precision medicine in arrhythmia risk assessment.
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.