ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2025
Navigating the AI Frontier in Toxicology: Trends, Trust, and Transformation.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causality analysis of toxicological mechanisms in networked systems such as adverse outcome pathway networks.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- Systematic validation of graph neural network explanations against adverse outcome pathway reactive centers for skin sensitization.Journal of cheminformatics · 2026Article
- AI in Drug Discovery: Clinical Failures, Regulatory Reality, and the Validation Crisis Behind the Hype.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Charting exposomethics: a roadmap for the ethical foundations of the human exposome project.Human genomics · 2026Review
- Next generation validation for next generation risk assessment.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Review
- AI snake oil? A risk/benefit analysis for toxicology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Green toxicology only becomes beautiful through AI.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Review
- AI redefine untargeted metabolomics: estimating chemical amounts for a Human Exposome Project.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Evidence-based AI: from trailblazer to trustblazer?Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- The data substrate of exposome intelligence: an interoperability profile for untargeted metabolomics.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Bridging science and curriculum: preparing future leaders in computational toxicology.Frontiers in toxicology · 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
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
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.