ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2026
Leveraging developmental neurotoxicity data in zebrafish embryos through the use of artificial intelligence methods.
Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The zebrafish is a well-known whole organism model to study developmental effects of chemical exposure, including developmental neurotoxicity (DNT). One method used to screen for DNT effects is the zebrafish light-dark transition test (LDT), which measures locomotory behavior under alternating light and dark conditions. Because the LDT is relatively new, experimental protocols and data analysis tools for this assay are still evolving. To advance our knowledge on potential applications of the LDT, we explored using artificial intelligence (AI) methods to distinguish between zebrafish exposed to vehicle controls or pharmaceuticals (fluoxetine, paroxetine, carbamazepine, phenytoin) on 5, 10 or 14 days post-fertilization (dpf). Methods: AI methods were trained to distinguish control versus exposed zebrafish behavior and then applied to assign fish to either group, using five-fold cross-validation. This was done with four different AI methods that differ in nature and complexity, namely Generalized Linear Model (GLM), Random Forest (RF), Gradient Boosting Machine (GBM), and Deep Learning (DL). Results: Average prediction accuracy increased from 67% at 5 dpf to 76% at 10 and 14 dpf upon continuous exposure. For fish analyzed at 14 dpf but exposed for shorter durations, we found DNT effects clearly persistent for the antidepressants fluoxetine and paroxetine, but less clearly for the anticonvulsants carbamazepine and phenytoin. The AI methods GLM, RF and DL showed comparable performance, whereas GBM accuracies were lower. Discussion: Compared to conventional univariate analysis, AI appears more sensitive in detecting DNT effects. Overall, this shows the potential of implementing AI methods in DNT screening of chemicals and further development of this approach.
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.