SynthesisPloS one2021
Large scale meta-analysis of preclinical toxicity data for target characterisation and hypotheses generation.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Cross study analyses of SEND data: toxicity profile classification.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent technological advances in the field of big data have increased our capabilities to query large databases and combine information from different domains and disciplines. In the area of preclinical studies, initiatives like SEND (Standard for Exchange of Nonclinical Data) will also contribute to collect and present nonclinical data in a consistent manner and increase analytical possibilities. With facilitated access to preclinical data and improvements in analytical algorithms there will surely be an expectation for organisations to ensure all the historical data available to them is leveraged to build new hypotheses. These kinds of analyses may soon become as important as the animal studies themselves, in addition to being critical components to achieve objectives aligned with 3Rs. This article proposes the application of meta-analyses at large scale in corporate databases as a tool to exploit data from both preclinical studies and in vitro pharmacological activity assays to identify associations between targets and tissues that can be used as seeds for the development of causal hypotheses to characterise of targets. A total of 833 in-house preclinical toxicity studies relating to 416 compounds reported to be active (pXC50 ≥ 5.5) against a panel of 96 selected targets of interest for potential off-target non desired effects were meta-analysed, aggregating the data in tissue-target pairs. The primary outcome was the odds ratio (OR) of the number of animals with observed events (any morphology, any severity) in treated and control groups in the tissue analysed. This led to a total of 2139 meta-analyses producing a total of 364 statistically significant associations (random effects model), 121 after adjusting by multiple comparison bias. The results show the utility of the proposed approach to leverage historical corporate data and may offer a vehicle for researchers to share, aggregate and analyse their preclinical toxicological data in precompetitive environments.
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.