Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30310652›Full record

ReviewToxicology research2018

Big-data and machine learning to revamp computational toxicology and its use in risk assessment.

Thomas Luechtefeld, Craig Rowlands, Thomas Hartung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Toxicology research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Machine learning and artificial intelligence in physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2023
    Article
  10. Automating Predictive Toxicology Using ComptoxAI.Chemical research in toxicology · 2022
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Curated Data In - TrustworthyAlternatives to laboratory animals : ATLA · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors.

Thomas LuechtefeldCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , 615 N. Wolfe Street , Baltimore , MD 21205 , USA . Email: THartun1@jhu.edu.
Craig RowlandsUnderwriters Laboratories (UL) , UL Product Supply Chain Intelligence , 333 Pfingsten Road , Northbrook , IL 60062 , USA.
Thomas HartungCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health , 615 N. Wolfe Street , Baltimore , MD 21205 , USA . Email: THartun1@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1359-7689

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

The creation of large toxicological databases and advances in machine-learning techniques have empowered computational approaches in toxicology. Work with these large databases based on regulatory data has allowed reproducibility assessment of animal models, which highlight weaknesses in traditional

Identifiers

PMID30310652
PMCPMC6116175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.