ReviewWiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational molecular science
Review in Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Computational molecular science. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 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
39 citing papers in PubMed.
- Coordination sphere interactions drive isomer selection in heteroleptic Pd(ii) cages with low-symmetry ligands.Chemical science · 2025Article
- Artificial Intelligence-Driven Drug Toxicity Prediction: Advances, Challenges, and Future Directions.Toxics · 2025Review
- Stacked-ring aromaticity from the viewpoint of the effective number of π-electrons.Chemical science · 2025Article
- Frequency and time domainPhysical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP · 2025Article
- Gas-phase aldol condensation of formaldehyde to produce hydroxyacetaldehyde and its implication to new particle formation: a theoretical study.RSC advances · 2024Article
- Efficient near-infrared emission benefits from slowing down the internal conversion process.Chemical science · 2024Article
- Iodine-PEG as a unique combination for the metal-free synthesis of flavonoids through iodonium-triiodide ion-pair complexation.RSC advances · 2024Article
- What are the minimal folding seeds in proteins? Experimental and theoretical assessment of secondary structure propensities of small peptide fragments.Chemical science · 2024Article
- Novel route to enhance the thermo-optical performance of bicyclic diene photoswitches for solar thermal batteries.Beilstein journal of organic chemistry · 2024Article
- Noncovalently bound excited-state dimers: a perspective on current time-dependent density functional theory approaches applied to aromatic excimer models.RSC advances · 2023Article
- Study of the electronic effect and quantitative spectra predictions ofRSC advances · 2023Article
- A CuChemical science · 2023Article
- Tetracoordinate Co(II) complexes with semi-coordination as stable single-ion magnets for deposition on graphene.Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP · 2023Article
- Energy-entropy multiscale cell correlation method to predict toluene-water logPhysical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP · 2023Article
- Nanostructured supramolecular networks from self-assembled diamondoid molecules under ultracold conditions.Physical chemistry chemical physics : PCCP · 2023Article
- Air-stable four-coordinate cobalt(ii) single-ion magnets: experimental andChemical science · 2023Article
- A donor-supported silavinylidene and silylium ylides: boroles as a flexible platform for versatile Si(ii) chemistry.Chemical science · 2023Article
- Accurate clinical toxicity prediction using multi-task deep neural nets and contrastive molecular explanations.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Catalyst-Free Transfer Hydrogenation of Activated Alkenes Exploiting Isopropanol as the Sole and Traceless Reductant.Green chemistry : an international journal and green chemistry resource : GC · 2023Article
- A combined gas-phase dissociative ionization, dissociative electron attachment and deposition study on the potential FEBID precursor [Au(CHBeilstein journal of nanotechnology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One goal of toxicity testing, among others, is identifying harmful effects of chemicals. Given the high demand for toxicity tests, it is necessary to conduct these tests for multiple toxicity endpoints for the same compound. Current computational toxicology methods aim at developing models mainly to predict a single toxicity endpoint. When chemicals cause several toxicity effects, one model is generated to predict toxicity for each endpoint, which can be labor and computationally intensive when the number of toxicity endpoints is large. Additionally, this approach does not take into consideration possible correlation between the endpoints. Therefore, there has been a recent shift in computational toxicity studies toward generating predictive models able to predict several toxicity endpoints by utilizing correlations between these endpoints. Applying such correlations jointly with compounds' features may improve model's performance and reduce the number of required models. This can be achieved through multi-label classification methods. These methods have not undergone comprehensive benchmarking in the domain of predictive toxicology. Therefore, we performed extensive benchmarking and analysis of over 19,000 multi-label classification models generated using combinations of the state-of-the-art methods. The methods have been evaluated from different perspectives using various metrics to assess their effectiveness. We were able to illustrate variability in the performance of the methods under several conditions. This review will help researchers to select the most suitable method for the problem at hand and provide a baseline for evaluating new approaches. Based on this analysis, we provided recommendations for potential future directions in this area. This article is categorized under: 1Computer and Information Science > Chemoinformatics2Computer and Information Science > Computer Algorithms and Programming.
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.