ArticleChemical research in toxicology2022
An End Point-Specific Framework for Read-Across Analog Selection for Human Health Effects.
Article in Chemical research in toxicology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Qualitative and quantitative in silico toxicity profiling of "angel dust": phencyclidine (PCP) analogues as new psychoactive substances (3-HO-PCP, 3-MeO-PCP, 4-MeO-PCP, 3-HO-PCE, 3-MeO-PCE, 4-MeO-PCE).Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Comprehensive reexamination of the acute toxicity of nitrogen mustards: HN-1, HN-2 and HN-3 as blister agents: application of multi in silico approach.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- Application of in silico methods to predict the acute toxicity of bicyclic organophosphorus compounds as potential chemical weapon.Archives of toxicology · 2025Article
- Incorporating new approach methods (NAMs) data in dose-response assessments: The future is now!Journal of toxicology and environmental health. Part B, Critical reviews · 2025Review
- Unlocking the Potential of Clustering and Classification Approaches: Navigating Supervised and Unsupervised Chemical Similarity.Environmental health perspectives · 2024Article
- Assessing human carcinogenicity risk of agrochemicals without the rodent cancer bioassay.Frontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
- ECHA ARN documents: chemical grouping without a toxicological rationale.Archives of toxicology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Integrating computational chemistry and toxicology can improve the read-across analog approach to fill data gaps in chemical safety assessment. In read-across, structure-related parameters are compared between a target chemical with insufficient test data and one or more materials with sufficient data. Recent advances have focused on enhancing the grouping or clustering of chemicals to facilitate toxicity prediction via read-across. Analog selection ascertains relevant features, such as physical-chemical properties, toxicokinetic-related properties (bioavailability, metabolism, and degradation pathways), and toxicodynamic properties of chemicals with an emphasis on mechanisms or modes of action. However, each human health end point (genotoxicity, skin sensitization, phototoxicity, repeated dose toxicity, reproductive toxicity, and local respiratory toxicity) provides a different critical context for analog selection. Here six end point-specific, rule-based schemes are described. Each scheme creates an end point-specific workflow for filling the target material data gap by read-across. These schemes are intended to create a transparent rationale that supports the selected read-across analog(s) for the specific end point under study. This framework can systematically drive the selection of read-across analogs for each end point, thereby accelerating the safety assessment process.
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.