ArticleJournal of pesticide science2022
Reconfiguring the online tool of SkinSensPred for predicting skin sensitization of pesticides.
Article in Journal of pesticide science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perspective on applicability of data-driven machine learning computational new approach methodologies for hazard identification in chemicals risk assessment.Journal of cheminformatics · 2026Review
- An Integrated Testing Strategy and Online Tool for Assessing Skin Sensitization of Agrochemical Formulations.Toxics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adverse outcome pathway (AOP)-based computational models provide state-of-the-art prediction for human skin sensitizers and are promising alternatives to animal testing. However, little is known about their applicability to pesticides due to scarce pesticide data for evaluation. Moreover, pesticides traditionally have been tested on animals without human data, making validation difficult. Direct application of AOP-based models to pesticides may be inappropriate since their original applicability domains were designed to maximize reliability for human response prediction on diverse chemicals but not pesticides. This study proposed to identify a consensus chemical space with concordant human responses predicted by the SkinSensPred online tool and animal testing data to reduce animal testing. The identified consensus chemical space for non-sensitizers achieved high concordance of 85% and 100% for the cross-validation and independent test, respectively. The reconfigured SkinSensPred can be applied as the first-tier tool for identifying non-sensitizers to reduce. animal testing for pesticides by 19.6%.
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.