ArticleJournal of applied toxicology : JAT2017
Multivariate models for prediction of human skin sensitization hazard.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessment of immunotoxicity in the 21st century: Where we are and what we need to replace animals.Current opinion in toxicology · 2025Article
- Use ofFrontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
- Amino Chemoassay Profiling of Aromatic Aldehydes-Unraveling Drivers of Their Skin Sensitization Potency.Chemical research in toxicology · 2023Article
- The VEGA Tool to Check the Applicability Domain Gives Greater Confidence in the Prediction of In Silico Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data.Chemical research in toxicology · 2023Article
- Immunotoxicity In Vitro Assays for Environmental Pollutants under Paradigm Shift in Toxicity Tests.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Article
- Fine optimization of a dissolution dynamic nuclear polarization experimental setting forMagnetic resonance (Gottingen, Germany) · 2022Article
- Review
- Titanium salts tested in reconstructed human skin with integrated MUTZ-3-derived Langerhans cells show an irritant rather than a sensitizing potential.Contact dermatitis · 2020Article
- Shelter from the cytokine storm: pitfalls and prospects in the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for an elderly population.Seminars in immunopathology · 2020Review
- Article
- Predicting potential adverse events using safety data from marketed drugs.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in Dermatology: Where Do We Stand?Frontiers in medicine · 2020Review
- Skin Sensitization Testing-What's Next?International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Non-animal methods to predict skin sensitization (II): an assessment of defined approachesCritical reviews in toxicology · 2018Review
- Combination of multiple neural crest migration assays to identify environmental toxicants from a proof-of-concept chemical library.Archives of toxicology · 2017Article
- Immunotoxicology: A brief history, current status and strategies for future immunotoxicity assessment.Current opinion in toxicology · 2017Article
- Prediction of skin sensitization potency using machine learning approaches.Journal of applied toxicology : JAT · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.