ArticleJournal of hazardous materials2022
Machine learning-based biomarkers identification from toxicogenomics - Bridging to regulatory relevant phenotypic endpoints.
Article in Journal of hazardous materials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Understanding the action mechanisms and safety of nanoparticles with functional toxicogenomics.Nanomedicine (London, England) · 2025Article
- Big data and AI: Potential and challenges for digital transformation in toxicology.Environmental analysis, health and toxicology · 2025Article
- Developmental toxicity: artificial intelligence-powered assessments.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2025Review
- Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells in Cardiomyopathy: Advancing Disease Modeling, Therapeutic Development, and Regenerative Therapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Robust hierarchical co-clustering for exploring toxicogenomic biomarkers and their chemical regulators.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Long-term impact of Hurricane Maria on point-of-use drinking water quality in Puerto Rico and associated potential adverse health effects.Water research · 2024Article
- Nonlethal Furfural Exposure Causes Genomic Alterations and Adaptability Evolution in Saccharomyces cerevisiae.Microbiology spectrum · 2023Article
- Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Toxicological Sciences.Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
One of the major challenges in realization and implementations of the Tox21 vision is the urgent need to establish quantitative link between in-vitro assay molecular endpoint and in-vivo regulatory-relevant phenotypic toxicity endpoint. Current toxicomics approach still mostly rely on large number of redundant markers without pre-selection or ranking, therefore, selection of relevant biomarkers with minimal redundancy would reduce the number of markers to be monitored and reduce the cost, time, and complexity of the toxicity screening and risk monitoring. Here, we demonstrated that, using time series toxicomics in-vitro assay along with machine learning-based feature selection (maximum relevance and minimum redundancy (MRMR)) and classification method (support vector machine (SVM)), an "optimal" number of biomarkers with minimum redundancy can be identified for prediction of phenotypic toxicity endpoints with good accuracy. We included two case studies for in-vivo carcinogenicity and Ames genotoxicity prediction, using 20 selected chemicals including model genotoxic chemicals and negative controls, respectively. The results suggested that, employing the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) concept, molecular endpoints based on a relatively small number of properly selected biomarker-ensemble involved in the conserved DNA-damage and repair pathways among eukaryotes, were able to predict both Ames genotoxicity endpoints and in-vivo carcinogenicity in rats. A prediction accuracy of 76% with AUC = 0.81 was achieved while predicting in-vivo carcinogenicity with the top-ranked five biomarkers. For Ames genotoxicity prediction, the top-ranked five biomarkers were able to achieve prediction accuracy of 70% with AUC = 0.75. However, the specific biomarkers identified as the top-ranked five biomarkers are different for the two different phenotypic genotoxicity assays. The top-ranked biomarkers for the in-vivo carcinogenicity prediction mainly focused on double strand break repair and DNA recombination, whereas the selected top-ranked biomarkers for Ames genotoxicity prediction are associated with base- and nucleotide-excision repair The method developed in this study will help to fill in the knowledge gap in phenotypic anchoring and predictive toxicology, and contribute to the progress in the implementation of tox 21 vision for environmental and health applications.
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.