Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32626447›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2019

Predicting toxicity of chemicals: software beats animal testing.

Thomas Hartung

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Managing evidence in food safety and nutrition.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Predicting toxicity of chemicals: software beats animal testing.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  10. Advancing human health risk assessment.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2019
    Article
  11. 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

1 author.

Thomas HartungJohns Hopkins University 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

We created earlier a large machine-readable database of 10,000 chemicals and 800,000 associated studies by natural language processing of the public parts of Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) registrations until December 2014. This database was used to assess the reproducibility of the six most frequently used Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) guideline tests. These tests consume 55% of all animals in safety testing in Europe, i.e. about 600,000 animals. With 350-750 chemicals with multiple results per test, reproducibility (balanced accuracy) was 81% and 69% of toxic substances were found again in a repeat experiment (sensitivity 69%). Inspired by the increasingly used read-across approach, we created a new type of QSAR, which is based on similarity of chemicals and not on chemical descriptors. A landscape of the chemical universe using 10 million structures was calculated, when based on Tanimoto indices similar chemicals are close and dissimilar chemicals far from each other. This allows placing any chemical of interest into the map and evaluating the information available for surrounding chemicals. In a data fusion approach, in which 74 different properties were taken into consideration, machine learning (random forest) allowed a fivefold cross-validation for 190,000 (non-) hazard labels of chemicals for which nine hazards were predicted. The balanced accuracy of this approach was 87% with a sensitivity of 89%. Each prediction comes with a certainty measure based on the homogeneity of data and distance of neighbours. Ongoing developments and future opportunities are discussed.

Indexed as

alternatives to animal testingcomputational toxicologyread‐acrossrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID32626447
PMCPMC7015478

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
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.