ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2022
Machine learning models for rat multigeneration reproductive toxicity prediction.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging machine learning for selective cannabinoid ligand discovery: methods, challenges, and opportunities.Expert opinion on drug discovery · 2026Review
- Perspective on applicability of data-driven machine learning computational new approach methodologies for hazard identification in chemicals risk assessment.Journal of cheminformatics · 2026Review
- Integrating Molecular Dynamics, Molecular Docking, and Machine Learning for Predicting SARS-CoV-2 Papain-like Protease Binders.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prediction of reproductive and developmental toxicity using an attention and gate augmented graph convolutional network.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- A refined set of RxNorm drug names for enhancing unstructured data analysis in drug safety surveillance.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Developing predictive models for µ opioid receptor binding using machine learning and deep learning techniques.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Unlocking the potential of AI: Machine learning and deep learning models for predicting carcinogenicity of chemicals.Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Toxicology and carcinogenesis · 2025Review
- Review
- Fingerprinting Interactions between Proteins and Ligands for Facilitating Machine Learning in Drug Discovery.Biomolecules · 2024Review
- Reproductive toxicology: keeping up with our changing world.Frontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
- Insight on cytotoxic NHC gold(I) halide complexes evaluated in multifaceted culture systems.Current research in toxicology · 2024Article
- BERT-based language model for accurate drug adverse event extraction from social media: implementation, evaluation, and contributions to pharmacovigilance practices.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Machine learning and deep learning for brain tumor MRI image segmentation.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023Review
- Developing a SARS-CoV-2 main protease binding prediction random forest model for drug repurposing for COVID-19 treatment.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Reproductive toxicity is one of the prominent endpoints in the risk assessment of environmental and industrial chemicals. Due to the complexity of the reproductive system, traditional reproductive toxicity testing in animals, especially guideline multigeneration reproductive toxicity studies, take a long time and are expensive. Therefore, machine learning, as a promising alternative approach, should be considered when evaluating the reproductive toxicity of chemicals. We curated rat multigeneration reproductive toxicity testing data of 275 chemicals from ToxRefDB (Toxicity Reference Database) and developed predictive models using seven machine learning algorithms (decision tree, decision forest, random forest, k-nearest neighbors, support vector machine, linear discriminant analysis, and logistic regression). A consensus model was built based on the seven individual models. An external validation set was curated from the COSMOS database and the literature. The performances of individual and consensus models were evaluated using 500 iterations of 5-fold cross-validations and the external validation data set. The balanced accuracy of the models ranged from 58% to 65% in the 5-fold cross-validations and 45%-61% in the external validations. Prediction confidence analysis was conducted to provide additional information for more appropriate applications of the developed models. The impact of our findings is in increasing confidence in machine learning models. We demonstrate the importance of using consensus models for harnessing the benefits of multiple machine learning models (i.e., using redundant systems to check validity of outcomes). While we continue to build upon the models to better characterize weak toxicants, there is current utility in saving resources by being able to screen out strong reproductive toxicants before investing
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.