Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28074598›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied toxicology : JAT2017

Prediction of skin sensitization potency using machine learning approaches.

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

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 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Use ofFrontiers in toxicology · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021
    Review
  9. [Artificial intelligence to support telemedicine in Africa].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2020
    Review
  10. Review
  11. Skin Sensitization Testing-What's Next?International journal of molecular sciences · 2019
    Review
  12. Review
  13. 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.

Qingda ZangILS, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Michael ParisILS, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
David M LehmannEPA/NHEERL/EPHD/CIB, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Shannon BellILS, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Nicole KleinstreuerNIH/NIEHS/DNTP/NICEATM, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
David AllenILS, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Joanna MathesonUS Consumer Product Safety Commission, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
Abigail JacobsFDA/CDER, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA.
Warren CaseyNIH/NIEHS/DNTP/NICEATM, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.
Judy StricklandILS, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA.

Funding

NIEHS NIH HHS HHSN273201500010C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The replacement of animal use in testing for regulatory classification of skin sensitizers is a priority for US federal agencies that use data from such testing. Machine learning models that classify substances as sensitizers or non-sensitizers without using animal data have been developed and evaluated. Because some regulatory agencies require that sensitizers be further classified into potency categories, we developed statistical models to predict skin sensitization potency for murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and human outcomes. Input variables for our models included six physicochemical properties and data from three non-animal test methods: direct peptide reactivity assay; human cell line activation test; and KeratinoSens™ assay. Models were built to predict three potency categories using four machine learning approaches and were validated using external test sets and leave-one-out cross-validation. A one-tiered strategy modeled all three categories of response together while a two-tiered strategy modeled sensitizer/non-sensitizer responses and then classified the sensitizers as strong or weak sensitizers. The two-tiered model using the support vector machine with all assay and physicochemical data inputs provided the best performance, yielding accuracy of 88% for prediction of LLNA outcomes (120 substances) and 81% for prediction of human test outcomes (87 substances). The best one-tiered model predicted LLNA outcomes with 78% accuracy and human outcomes with 75% accuracy. By comparison, the LLNA predicts human potency categories with 69% accuracy (60 of 87 substances correctly categorized). These results suggest that computational models using non-animal methods may provide valuable information for assessing skin sensitization potency. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Indexed as

Machine LearningAnimal Testing AlternativesBiological AssayDermatitis, Allergic ContactHazardous SubstancesHumansModels, StatisticalSkinUnited StatesHazardous Substancesallergic contact dermatitis (ACD)direct peptide reactivity assay (DPRA)h-CLAT (human cell line activation test)integrated decision strategy (IDS)KeratinoSensmachine learningmurine local lymph node assay (LLNA)Skin sensitization potency

Identifiers

PMID28074598
PMCPMC5435511

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.