Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35935266›Full record

ArticleArtificial intelligence in the life sciences2021

Novel computational models offer alternatives to animal testing for assessing eye irritation and corrosion potential of chemicals.

Arthur C Silva, Joyce V V B Borba, Vinicius M Alves, Steven U S Hall, Nicholas Furnham, Nicole Kleinstreuer, Eugene Muratov, Alexander Tropsha, Carolina Horta Andrade

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Artificial intelligence in the life sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The estimation of acute oral toxicity (LDArchives of toxicology · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

9 authors.

Arthur C SilvaLabMol-Laboratory for Molecular Modeling and Drug Design, Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal de Goiás-UFG, Goiânia, GO, Brazil.
Joyce V V B BorbaLabMol-Laboratory for Molecular Modeling and Drug Design, Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal de Goiás-UFG, Goiânia, GO, Brazil.
Vinicius M AlvesLaboratory for Molecular Modeling, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Steven U S HallLabMol-Laboratory for Molecular Modeling and Drug Design, Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal de Goiás-UFG, Goiânia, GO, Brazil.
Nicholas FurnhamDepartment of Infection Biology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom.
Nicole KleinstreuerNational Toxicology Program Interagency Center for the Evaluation of Alternative Toxicological Methods, NIEHS, Durham, North Carolina 27560, USA.
Eugene MuratovLaboratory for Molecular Modeling, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Alexander TropshaLaboratory for Molecular Modeling, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Carolina Horta AndradeLabMol-Laboratory for Molecular Modeling and Drug Design, Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade Federal de Goiás-UFG, Goiânia, GO, Brazil.

Funding

Development of a web-based platform implementing novel Predictor of Skin Sensitization for Medical Devices (PreSS/MD)R43ES032371 · NIEHS · PREDICTIVE, LLC · PI RIBEILL, YVES · 2020 to 2020
$168k
NIEHS NIH HHS R43 ES032371
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Eye irritation and corrosion are fundamental considerations in developing chemicals to be used in or near the eye, from cleaning products to ophthalmic solutions. Unfortunately, animal testing is currently the standard method to identify compounds that cause eye irritation or corrosion. Yet, there is growing pressure on the part of regulatory agencies both in the USA and abroad to develop New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) that help reduce the need for animal testing and address unmet need to modernize safety evaluation of chemical hazards. In furthering the development and applications of computational NAMs in chemical safety assessment, in this study we have collected the largest expertly curated dataset of compounds tested for eye irritation and corrosion, and employed this data to build and validate binary and multi-classification Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSAR) models that can reliably assess eye irritation/corrosion potential of novel untested compounds. QSAR models were generated with Random Forest (RF) and Multi-Descriptor Read Across (MuDRA) machine learning (ML) methods, and validated using a 5-fold external cross-validation protocol. These models demonstrated high balanced accuracy (CCR of 0.68-0.88), sensitivity (SE of 0.61-0.84), positive predictive value (PPV of 0.65-0.90), specificity (SP of 0.56-0.91), and negative predictive value (NPV of 0.68-0.85). Overall, MuDRA models outperformed RF models and were applied to predict compounds' irritation/corrosion potential from the Inactive Ingredient Database, which contains components present in FDA-approved drug products, and from the Cosmetic Ingredient Database, the European Commission source of information on cosmetic substances. All models built and validated in this study are publicly available at the STopTox web portal (https://stoptox.mml.unc.edu/). These models can be employed as reliable tools for identifying potential eye irritant/corrosive compounds.

Identifiers

PMID35935266
PMCPMC9355119

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.