ReviewToxics2025
Machine Learning for Predicting Human Drug-Induced Cardiotoxicity: A Scoping Review.
Review in Toxics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comprehensive Review on the Toxicity of Five Main AQ Constituents from Rhubarb: Mechanisms, Challenges and Future Perspectives.Drug design, development and therapy · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDrug-induced cardiotoxicity poses a major challenge in drug development and clinical safety. Although machine learning (ML) methods have shown potential in predicting cardiotoxic risks, prior research has largely focused on specific mechanisms such as human Ether-à-go-go-Related Gene (hERG) inhibition. This scoping review systematically examined studies applying ML models to predict a broad range of drug-induced cardiotoxicity outcomes.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, and Web of Science identified studies developing ML models for cardiotoxicity prediction. Extracted data included sources, feature types, algorithms, and performance metrics, categorized by evaluation method (training, testing, cross-validation, or external validation).
resultsTwenty-five studies met inclusion criteria, addressing outcomes such as arrhythmia, cardiac failure, heart block, hypertension, and myocardial infarction. Structured resources such as SIDER (Side Effect Resource) were the most common data sources, with features including molecular descriptors, fingerprints, and occasionally, target-based or transcriptomic data. Support vector machines (SVM) and random forest (RF) were the most common algorithms, showing robust predictive performance, with externally validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC-ROC) values above 0.70 and accuracy exceeding 0.75 in several studies. Despite variability and limited external validation, ML approaches demonstrate substantial promise for predicting diverse cardiotoxic outcomes.
conclusionsThis review underscores the importance of integrating heterogeneous data and rigorous validation for improving cardiotoxicity prediction.
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.