ArticleScientific reports2021
Quantitative structure-activity relationship models for genotoxicity prediction based on combination evaluation strategies for toxicological alternative experiments.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- AMPred-MFG: Investigating the Mutagenicity of Compounds Using Motif-Based Graph Combined with Molecular Fingerprints and Graph Attention Mechanism.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2026Article
- Establishment of an Integrated Model for Predicting Compound Mutagenicity with a Feature Importance Analysis.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- Revisiting the approaches to DNA damage detection in genetic toxicology: insights and regulatory implications.BioData mining · 2025Article
- Deep active learning with high structural discriminability for molecular mutagenicity prediction.Communications biology · 2024Article
- Development of QSRR model for hydroxamic acids using PCA-GA-BP algorithm incorporated with molecular interaction-based features.Frontiers in chemistry · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mutagenicity exerts adverse effects on humans. Conventional methods cannot simultaneously predict the toxicity of a large number of compounds. Most mutagenicity prediction models are based on a single experimental type and lack other experimental combination data as support, resulting in limited application scope and predictive ability. In this study, we partitioned data from GENE-TOX, CPDB, and Chemical Carcinogenesis Research Information System according to the weight-of-evidence method for modelling. In our data set, in vivo and in vitro experiments in groups as well as prokaryotic and eukaryotic cell experiments were included in accordance with the ICH guideline. We compared the two experimental combinations mentioned in the weight-of-evidence method and reintegrated the experimental data into three groups. Nine sub-models and three fusion models were established using random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and back propagation (BP) neural network algorithms. When fusing base models under the same algorithm according to the ensemble rules, all models showed excellent predictive performance. The RF, SVM, and BP fusion models reached a prediction accuracy rate of 83.4%, 80.5%, 79.0% respectively. The area under the curve (AUC) reached 0.853, 0.897, 0.865 respectively. Therefore, the established fusion QSAR models can serve as an early warning system for mutagenicity of compounds.
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.