Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29101769›Full record

ArticleALTEX2017

Computational approaches to chemical hazard assessment.

Thomas Luechtefeld, Thomas Hartung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ALTEX, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. HazChemNet: A Deep Learning Model for Hazardous Chemical Prediction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. In Vitro Liver Toxicity Testing of Chemicals: A Pragmatic Approach.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Are we rushing too much?Food and chemical toxicology : an international journal published for the British Industrial Biological Research Association · 2020
    Article
  15. Article
  16. In silico prediction of toxicity and its applications for chemicals at work.Toxicology and environmental health sciences · 2020
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Predicting toxicity of chemicals: software beats animal testing.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Thomas LuechtefeldJohns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, USA.
Thomas HartungJohns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

Traning Program in Environmental Health SciencesT32ES007141 · NIEHS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Marsha Wills-Karp · 1985 to 2026
$22.2M
NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational prediction of toxicity has reached new heights as a result of decades of growth in the magnitude and diversity of biological data. Public packages for statistics and machine learning make model creation faster. New theory in machine learning and cheminformatics enables integration of chemical structure, toxicogenomics, simulated and physical data in the prediction of chemical health hazards, and other toxicological information. Our earlier publications have characterized a toxicological dataset of unprecedented scale resulting from the European REACH legislation (Registration Evaluation Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals). These publications dove into potential use cases for regulatory data and some models for exploiting this data. This article analyzes the options for the identification and categorization of chemicals, moves on to the derivation of descriptive features for chemicals, discusses different kinds of targets modeled in computational toxicology, and ends with a high-level perspective of the algorithms used to create computational toxicology models.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationModels, ChemicalProportional Hazards ModelsHumansMachine LearningQuantitative Structure-Activity RelationshipRisk AssessmentToxicologycheminformaticsmachine learningmolecular descriptorQSARtoxicology

Identifiers

PMID29101769
PMCPMC5848496

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.