ArticleSAR and QSAR in environmental research2014
Structure-activity relationship models for rat carcinogenesis and assessing the role mutagens play in model predictivity.
Article in SAR and QSAR in environmental research, 2014. 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
We previously demonstrated that fragment based cat-SAR carcinogenesis models consisting solely of mutagenic or non-mutagenic carcinogens varied greatly in terms of their predictive accuracy. This led us to investigate how well the rat cancer cat-SAR model predicted mutagens and non-mutagens in their learning set. Four rat cancer cat-SAR models were developed: Complete Rat, Transgender Rat, Male Rat and Female Rat, with leave-one-out (LOO) validation concordance values of 69%, 74%, 67% and 73%, respectively. The mutagenic carcinogens produced concordance values in the range 69-76% compared with only 47-53% for non-mutagenic carcinogens. As a surrogate for mutagenicity, comparisons between single site and multiple site carcinogen SAR models were analysed. The LOO concordance values for models consisting of 1-site, 2-site and 4+-site carcinogens were 66%, 71% and 79%, respectively. As expected, the proportion of mutagens to non-mutagens also increased, rising from 54% for 1-site to 80% for 4+-site carcinogens. This study demonstrates that mutagenic chemicals, in both SAR learning sets and test sets, are influential in assessing model accuracy. This suggests that SAR models for carcinogens may require a two-step process in which mutagenicity is first determined before carcinogenicity can be accurately predicted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.