Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41526782›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental science and pollution research international2026

AI/ML-based computational models for toxicity prediction.

Sushmita Barua, Badhrinarayanan Balaji, Seetharaman Balaji

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Sushmita BaruaManipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India.
Badhrinarayanan BalajiManipal School of Information Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India.
Seetharaman BalajiManipal Institute of Technology, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, 576104, India. s.balaji@manipal.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0557-4623

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The increasing demand for accurate toxicity assessment and to minimise or eliminate the use of animal testing has accelerated the development of numerous computational models, AI/ML models, and online resources that support research in computational toxicology. This review addresses toxicity prediction and chemical safety evaluation, focusing on computational models and data coverage, Molecular Descriptors, QSAR models, AI/ML-based approaches, Explainable AI, predictive methodologies, regulatory relevance, and accessibility. This collectively enables the identification, prediction, and analysis of chemical toxicity across various biological endpoints. In addition, the review highlights AI/ML tools for predicting toxicity endpoints, such as neurotoxicity, hepatotoxicity, cardiotoxicity, genotoxicity, and environmental toxicity. Regulatory limitations vary significantly among countries and jurisdictions, exhibiting a marked absence of convergence. Current debates regarding regulatory norms focus on achieving global conformity. Regulatory adaptability is the key as AI evolves rapidly. The promotion of AI/ML tool integration and interoperable frameworks could substantially enhance the future of predictive toxicology.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceAnimalsComputer SimulationHumansQuantitative Structure-Activity RelationshipToxicity TestsAIAnimal toxicityComputational toxicityEcotoxicityHuman toxicityMLSDG 3, 6, 9, 12, 14

Identifiers

PMID41526782
PMCPMC13627195

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
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.