Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22575717›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2012

A three-stage algorithm to make toxicologically relevant activity calls from quantitative high throughput screening data.

Keith R Shockley

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Lessons learned from evaluating defined chemical mixtures in a high-throughput estrogen receptor assay system.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2025
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Cell-Based High-Throughput Screening for Aromatase Inhibitors in the Tox21 10K Library.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2015
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

1 author.

Keith R ShockleyBiostatistics Branch, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA. shockleykr@niehs.nih.gov

Funding

Analysis of Quantitative High Throughput Screening DataZIAES102865 · NIEHS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES · PI SHOCKLEY, KEITH · 2010 to 2025
$2.8M
Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe ability of a substance to induce a toxicological response is better understood by analyzing the response profile over a broad range of concentrations than at a single concentration. In vitro quantitative high throughput screening (qHTS) assays are multiple-concentration experiments with an important role in the National Toxicology Program's (NTP) efforts to advance toxicology from a predominantly observational science at the level of disease-specific models to a more predictive science based on broad inclusion of biological observations.

objectiveWe developed a systematic approach to classify substances from large-scale concentration-​response data into statistically supported, toxicologically relevant activity categories.

methodsThe first stage of the approach finds active substances with robust concentration-response profiles within the tested concentration range. The second stage finds substances with activity at the lowest tested concentration not captured in the first stage. The third and final stage separates statistically significant (but not robustly statistically significant) profiles from responses that lack statistically compelling support (i.e., "inactives"). The performance of the proposed algorithm was evaluated with simulated qHTS data sets.

resultsThe proposed approach performed well for 14-point-concentration-response curves with typical levels of residual error (σ ≤ 25%) or when maximal response (|RMAX|) was > 25% of the positive control response. The approach also worked well in most cases for smaller sample sizes when |RMAX| ≥ 50%, even with as few as four data points.

conclusionsThe three-stage classification algorithm performed better than one-stage classification approaches based on overall F-tests, t-tests, or linear regression.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAndrogensHazardous SubstancesHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysAndrogensHazardous Substances

Identifiers

PMID22575717
PMCPMC3440085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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 OpenQuestion graph.