Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27480324›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied toxicology : JAT2017

Multivariate models for prediction of human skin sensitization hazard.

Judy Strickland, Qingda Zang, Michael Paris, David M Lehmann, David Allen, Neepa Choksi, Joanna Matheson, Abigail Jacobs, Warren Casey, Nicole Kleinstreuer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied toxicology : JAT, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Use ofFrontiers in toxicology · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Immunotoxicity In Vitro Assays for Environmental Pollutants under Paradigm Shift in Toxicity Tests.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Skin Sensitization Testing-What's Next?International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
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.

Judy StricklandILS, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Qingda ZangILS, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Michael ParisILS, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
David M LehmannUS Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
David AllenILS, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Neepa ChoksiILS, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Joanna MathesonUS Consumer Product Safety Commission, Rockville, MD, 20850, USA.
Abigail JacobsUS Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Warren CaseyNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Nicole KleinstreuerNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.

Funding

NIEHS NIH HHS HHSN273201500010C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Method's (ICCVAM) top priorities is the development and evaluation of non-animal approaches to identify potential skin sensitizers. The complexity of biological events necessary to produce skin sensitization suggests that no single alternative method will replace the currently accepted animal tests. ICCVAM is evaluating an integrated approach to testing and assessment based on the adverse outcome pathway for skin sensitization that uses machine learning approaches to predict human skin sensitization hazard. We combined data from three in chemico or in vitro assays - the direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA), human cell line activation test (h-CLAT) and KeratinoSens™ assay - six physicochemical properties and an in silico read-across prediction of skin sensitization hazard into 12 variable groups. The variable groups were evaluated using two machine learning approaches, logistic regression and support vector machine, to predict human skin sensitization hazard. Models were trained on 72 substances and tested on an external set of 24 substances. The six models (three logistic regression and three support vector machine) with the highest accuracy (92%) used: (1) DPRA, h-CLAT and read-across; (2) DPRA, h-CLAT, read-across and KeratinoSens; or (3) DPRA, h-CLAT, read-across, KeratinoSens and log P. The models performed better at predicting human skin sensitization hazard than the murine local lymph node assay (accuracy 88%), any of the alternative methods alone (accuracy 63-79%) or test batteries combining data from the individual methods (accuracy 75%). These results suggest that computational methods are promising tools to identify effectively the potential human skin sensitizers without animal testing. Published 2016. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimal Use AlternativesBiological AssayDatabases, FactualDermatitis, Allergic ContactHazardous SubstancesHumansLogistic ModelsMachine LearningMultivariate AnalysisPredictive Value of TestsSkinHazardous Substancesallergic contact dermatitis (ACD)DPRAh-CLATintegrated decision strategyKeratinoSensLLNAmachine learningSkin sensitization

Identifiers

PMID27480324
PMCPMC5243794

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.