Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42059907›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2026

A review of machine learning in toxicology: current practices and reporting gaps.

Franziska Kappenberg, Marieke Stolte, Luca Sauer, Julia C Duda, Michael Lau, Leonie Schürmeyer, Huiying Zhou, Holger Schwender, Kirsten Schorning, Jörg Rahnenführer

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of 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.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

10 authors.

Franziska KappenbergDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Vogelpothsweg 87, Dortmund, 44227, Germany.
Marieke StolteDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Vogelpothsweg 87, Dortmund, 44227, Germany.
Luca SauerDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Vogelpothsweg 87, Dortmund, 44227, Germany.
Julia C DudaDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Vogelpothsweg 87, Dortmund, 44227, Germany.
Michael LauMathematical Institute, Heinrich Heine University, Universitätsstrasse 1, Düsseldorf, 40225, Germany.
Leonie SchürmeyerDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Vogelpothsweg 87, Dortmund, 44227, Germany.
Huiying ZhouDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Vogelpothsweg 87, Dortmund, 44227, Germany.
Holger SchwenderMathematical Institute, Heinrich Heine University, Universitätsstrasse 1, Düsseldorf, 40225, Germany.
Kirsten SchorningDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Vogelpothsweg 87, Dortmund, 44227, Germany.
Jörg RahnenführerDepartment of Statistics, TU Dortmund University, Vogelpothsweg 87, Dortmund, 44227, Germany. rahnenfuehrer@statistik.tu-dortmund.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years, machine learning and artificial intelligence approaches have been increasingly applied in the context of toxicological risk assessment. Many published overview, review, and comment papers discuss advantages, disadvantages, success stories, and open challenges for the application of machine learning models in toxicology. Machine learning methods using information from in vitro experiments can help to avoid animal experiments, thus allowing for larger numbers of experiments to be conducted. Drawbacks of machine learning models are the lack of mechanistic interpretability and the need for large amounts of high-quality data. In this work, we present a literature review of papers indexed in PubMed or published in the journal Computational Toxicology in the years 2022 to 2024, to assess the usage of machine learning methods in toxicology as well as the practices in reporting of methods and corresponding results. We do not address the suitability or the performance of methods, which is impossible to assess objectively without reanalysis on raw data, but focus on common practices and gaps in reporting. Major results are that many different machine learning methods are used in toxicology, often with appropriate internal validation. However, in only half of the cases, interpretation methods are used to address the problem that these models often make predictions as a black box. Moreover, there are very frequent gaps in reporting, in particular related to handling of missing values, and availability of data and code. Thus, this review can serve as a starting point for further tailored methodological research and guidance.

Indexed as

Machine LearningToxicologyAnimalsArtificial IntelligenceHumansPredictive Learning ModelsRisk AssessmentArtificial IntelligenceMachine LearningQSARReportingReviewToxicology

Identifiers

PMID42059907
PMCPMC13379476

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.