Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36238576›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2022

Machine learning models for rat multigeneration reproductive toxicity prediction.

Jie Liu, Wenjing Guo, Fan Dong, Jason Aungst, Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Tucker A Patterson, Huixiao Hong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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 · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Machine learning and deep learning for brain tumor MRI image segmentation.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023
    Review
  14. 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

7 authors.

Jie LiuNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, United States.
Wenjing GuoNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, United States.
Fan DongNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, United States.
Jason AungstCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, United States.
Suzanne FitzpatrickCenter for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, College Park, MD, United States.
Tucker A PattersonNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, United States.
Huixiao HongNational Center for Toxicological Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Jefferson, AR, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

consensus modelmachine learningmolecular descriptormultigeneration reproductive toxicitytoxicity prediction

Identifiers

PMID36238576
PMCPMC9552001

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.