ArticleJournal of applied toxicology : JAT2017
Prediction of skin sensitization potency using machine learning approaches.
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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Current and emerging new approach & methodologies for skin hazard assessment.Toxicological research · 2026Review
- Optimizing skin sensitization prediction across activity cliffs: a comparative analysis of K-nearest neighbours vs random Forest.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- SbD4Skin by EosCloud: Integrating multi-view molecular representation for predicting skin sensitization, irritation, and acute dermal toxicity.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- The skin allergy risk assessment-integrated chemical environment (SARA-ICE) defined approach to derive points of departure for skin sensitization.Current research in toxicology · 2025Article
- Article
- Use ofFrontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
- Article
- Review
- [Artificial intelligence to support telemedicine in Africa].Der Hautarzt; Zeitschrift fur Dermatologie, Venerologie, und verwandte Gebiete · 2020Review
- 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
- Immunotoxicology: A brief history, current status and strategies for future immunotoxicity assessment.Current opinion in toxicology · 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
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
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.