Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41348304›Full record

ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2025

Navigating the AI Frontier in Toxicology: Trends, Trust, and Transformation.

Thomas Luechtefeld, Thomas Hartung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current environmental health reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. AI snake oil? A risk/benefit analysis for toxicology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Evidence-based AI: from trailblazer to trustblazer?Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
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

2 authors.

Thomas LuechtefeldToxTrack LLC, Bethesda, MD, 20894, USA.
Thomas HartungCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. Thomas.Hartung@uni-konstanz.de.

Funding

Pilot Project ProgramP30ES032756 · NIEHS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Marsha Wills-Karp · 2022 to 2026
$6.0M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES032756
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThe integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into toxicology marks a profound paradigm shift in chemical safety science. No longer limited to automating traditional workflows, AI is redefining how we assess risk, interpret complex biological data, and inform regulatory decision-making. This article explores the convergence of AI and other new approach methodologies (NAMs), emphasizing key trends such as multimodal learning, causal inference, explainable AI (xAI), generative modeling, and federated learning. RECENT

findingsThese technologies enable more human-relevant, mechanistically grounded, and ethically aligned toxicological predictions-surpassing the reproducibility and scalability of animal-based methods. However, the dynamic nature of AI models challenges traditional validation paradigms. To address this, we introduced the e-validation framework, which operationalizes the TREAT principles (Trustworthiness, Reproducibility, Explainability, Applicability, Transparency) and incorporates AI-powered modules for reference chemical selection, virtual study simulation, mechanistic cross-validation, and post-validation surveillance through companion agents. Ethical considerations-including bias audits, equity audits, and participatory governance-are also foregrounded as critical elements for responsible AI adoption. The emergence of a co-pilot model, where AI augments but does not replace human judgment, offers a pragmatic path forward. Supported by evidence from the 2025 Stanford AI Index and recent regulatory advances, we argue that the infrastructure, economics, and policy momentum are now aligned for global-scale deployment of AI-based toxicology. The future of the field lies not in replicating legacy practices, but in reinventing toxicology as an adaptive, transparent, and ethically grounded science that delivers more accurate, inclusive, and human-centric safety assessments. Artificial intelligence (AI) is changing how we test chemicals for safety. Instead of using animals, new computer-based tools can predict how substances affect human health more quickly, accurately, and ethically. This article looks at how these technologies-like smart data systems, models that explain their reasoning, and even AI "agents" that run simulations-can improve toxicology. We also introduce a new idea called "e-validation", which uses AI to help validate these methods in real-time, not just once. This ensures the models stay up to date and reliable. But using AI safely means tackling big questions: Can we trust results we don't fully understand? How do we prevent unfairness or bias in the data? We suggest a "co-pilot" model, where AI supports, but doesn't replace, human experts. With better data sharing, strong ethics, and smarter oversight, AI can help make chemical safety testing more human-focused, fair, and effective.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceToxicologyAnimalsHumansRisk AssessmentArtificial Intelligence (AI)Bias auditCausal modelingChemical risk assessmentDigital twinsEthical toxicologye-ValidationExplainable AI (xAI)Federated learningHuman relevanceNew Approach Methodologies (NAM)Regulatory scienceResponsible AIToxicologyTREAT principles

Identifiers

PMID41348304
PMCPMC12680801

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.