ReviewJournal of cheminformatics2026
Perspective on applicability of data-driven machine learning computational new approach methodologies for hazard identification in chemicals risk assessment.
Review in Journal of cheminformatics, 2026. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI) approaches have potential to make better-informed decisions in chemical hazard identification while reducing animal testing. Their application in the context of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) for Hazard Identification in Chemicals Risk Assessment (CRA) is challenging due to the limited knowledge, lack of experience, and uncertainty related to the use of these approaches. Therefore, to facilitate ML and AI approaches' potential acceptance for regulatory use, better standardization, guidelines for transparent reporting, validation, and frameworks are needed to understand their accessibility, verifiability, and usefulness criteria for predictions. An extensive literature review on the availability of ML and AI based NAMs for chemical hazard identification was conducted, focusing primarily on human health endpoints: specific target organ toxicity (STOT), genotoxicity and carcinogenicity, endocrine disruption, skin sensitization, developmental and reproductive toxicity (DART), and repeated dose or chronic toxicity. Nearly 2300 scientific articles were reviewed, and 274 publications with ML-QSAR models revealed that 60.9% of the models described in the scientific literature turned out to be non-usable, 21.9% were potentially usable, and 17.2% were directly usable, i.e., had available software solutions. By endpoint, the skin sensitization is best covered with the ML-QSAR models, followed by endocrine disruption, genotoxicity, and carcinogenicity models. The most derived ML-QSAR models are tree-based models such as random forests, and analogues, followed by artificial neural networks and support vector machine models, with other models being used to a lesser extent. The literature analysis led to a framework that helps model users to identify potentially suitable models for use in a regulatory context. In addition, the framework could help model developers better understand the expectations of model users in a regulatory context and use the framework as a reference when publishing their models, ensuring greater transparency, alignment with regulatory needs, and facilitating future acceptance.
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.