ReviewChem & bio engineering2025
Recent Advances in Machine Learning Models for Predicting Toxicity of Inorganic Nanoparticles.
Review in Chem & bio engineering, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bridging Nano-Interface Interactions and Organ-Specific Toxicity: A Review of Machine Learning for Nanomaterials Risk Assessment.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Pharmacological modulation of cGAS-STING-NLRP3 signaling by nano-immunomodulators in Alzheimer and Parkinson disease.Inflammopharmacology · 2026Review
- From Executor to Orchestrator: The Pharmacology Scientist in the Age of Agentic AI.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- A Multimodal Generative AI Framework for Predicting the Toxicity of Nanoparticles.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Enzymatic Nanomotors Integrated with Plant Extracts: Biochemical Mechanisms, Applications, and Clinical Perspectives.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Illuminating the metabolic sink: Optical probes for in vivo thermogenic fat imaging.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nanoparticles (NPs) such as engineered inorganic NPs (metals, metal oxides, carbon materials, etc.) can induce cytotoxicity in normal biological systems when used for disease treatment or when exposed to the environment, which has raised widespread concerns about their safety in biomedicine, environmental chemistry, and other application fields. Therefore, developing efficient strategies for the hazard and risk assessment of NPs is extremely important to ensure their safety and sustainable development in above applications. Herein, we provide a systematic and comprehensive review that includes the following sections: (i) mechanisms and influencing factors of nanotoxicity, (ii) the classical statistical cytotoxicity prediction models such as nano-quantitative structure-activity relationship (nanoQSAR), physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK), and meta-analysis (MA) models, (iii) the ML-accelerated development of the above three types of models, and (iv) some important nanotoxicity databases. The ML-accelerated nanoQSAR, PBPK, and MA models are mainly focused, in which the ML algorithms, advantages, and schemes for model development are described, and also the prediction performance and key features that influence the cytotoxicity for the developed models are discussed in detail. In addition, future opportunities and challenges in promoting the development of highly efficient, robust, and interpretable ML models for predicting the cytotoxicity of NPs are also highlighted.
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.