ArticleLaboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology2021
Predictive modeling of estrogen receptor agonism, antagonism, and binding activities using machine- and deep-learning approaches.
Article in Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 55 citations in OpenAlex.
- ToxiVerse: chemical bioprofiling, toxicity data sharing and customizable predictive modeling.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Methodological Challenges in the Application of QSAR Models for Chemical Prioritization and Toxicity Assessment: A Case Study on Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Activity in Environmental Pollutant Mixtures.ACS environmental Au · 2026Article
- ToxiVerse: A Public Platform for Chemical Toxicity Data Sharing and Customizable Predictive Modeling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Machine Learning Modeling for ABC Transporter Efflux and Inhibition: Data Curation, Model Development, and New Compound Interaction Predictions.Molecular pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- Mapping the Rise in Machine Learning in Environmental Chemical Research: A Bibliometric Analysis.Toxics · 2025Review
- Developmental toxicity: artificial intelligence-powered assessments.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2025Review
- Application of Machine Learning and Mechanistic Modeling to Predict Intravenous Pharmacokinetic Profiles in Humans.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2025Article
- Article
- Predicting Chemical Immunotoxicity through Data-Driven QSAR Modeling of Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor Agonism and Related Toxicity Mechanisms.Environment & health (Washington, D.C.) · 2024Article
- Hybrid non-animal modeling: A mechanistic approach to predict chemical hepatotoxicity.Journal of hazardous materials · 2024Article
- Transformers enable accurate prediction of acute and chronic chemical toxicity in aquatic organisms.Science advances · 2024Article
- Development and application of consensusFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Machine Learning Methods for Endocrine Disrupting Potential Identification Based on Single-Cell Data.Chemical engineering science · 2023Article
- Integrating Concentration-Dependent Toxicity Data and Toxicokinetics To Inform Hepatotoxicity Response Pathways.Environmental science & technology · 2023Article
- MATH: A Deep Learning Approach in QSAR for Estrogen Receptor Alpha Inhibitors.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Data-Driven Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Modeling for Human Carcinogenicity by Chronic Oral Exposure.Environmental science & technology · 2023Article
- Computational pharmacology and computational chemistry of 4-hydroxyisoleucine: Physicochemical, pharmacokinetic, and DFT-based approaches.Frontiers in chemistry · 2023Article
- Mechanism-driven modeling of chemical hepatotoxicity using structural alerts and an in vitro screening assay.Journal of hazardous materials · 2022Article
- Predicting Prenatal Developmental Toxicity Based On the Combination of Chemical Structures and Biological Data.Environmental science & technology · 2022Article
- Replacement per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are potent modulators of lipogenic and drug metabolizing gene expression signatures in primary human hepatocytes.Toxicology and applied pharmacology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
As defined by the World Health Organization, an endocrine disruptor is an exogenous substance or mixture that alters function(s) of the endocrine system and consequently causes adverse health effects in an intact organism, its progeny, or (sub)populations. Traditional experimental testing regimens to identify toxicants that induce endocrine disruption can be expensive and time-consuming. Computational modeling has emerged as a promising and cost-effective alternative method for screening and prioritizing potentially endocrine-active compounds. The efficient identification of suitable chemical descriptors and machine-learning algorithms, including deep learning, is a considerable challenge for computational toxicology studies. Here, we sought to apply classic machine-learning algorithms and deep-learning approaches to a panel of over 7500 compounds tested against 18 Toxicity Forecaster assays related to nuclear estrogen receptor (ERα and ERβ) activity. Three binary fingerprints (Extended Connectivity FingerPrints, Functional Connectivity FingerPrints, and Molecular ACCess System) were used as chemical descriptors in this study. Each descriptor was combined with four machine-learning and two deep- learning (normal and multitask neural networks) approaches to construct models for all 18 ER assays. The resulting model performance was evaluated using the area under the receiver- operating curve (AUC) values obtained from a fivefold cross-validation procedure. The results showed that individual models have AUC values that range from 0.56 to 0.86. External validation was conducted using two additional sets of compounds (n = 592 and n = 966) with established interactions with nuclear ER demonstrated through experimentation. An agonist, antagonist, or binding score was determined for each compound by averaging its predicted probabilities in relevant assay models as an external validation, yielding AUC values ranging from 0.63 to 0.91. The results suggest that multitask neural networks offer advantages when modeling mechanistically related endpoints. Consensus predictions based on the average values of individual models remain the best modeling strategy for computational toxicity evaluations.
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.