Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36878992›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2023

Artificial intelligence and machine learning disciplines with the potential to improve the nanotoxicology and nanomedicine fields: a comprehensive review.

Ajay Vikram Singh, Mansi Varma, Peter Laux, Sunil Choudhary, Ashok Kumar Datusalia, Neha Gupta, Andreas Luch, Anusha Gandhi, Pranav Kulkarni, Banashree Nath

Full text readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Materials today. Bio · 2025
    Review
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

10 authors.

Ajay Vikram Singh *Department of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Straße 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany. Ajay-Vikram.Singh@bfr.bund.de.ORCID 0000-0003-2657-7935
Mansi Varma *Department of Regulatory Toxicology, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER-Raebareli), Lucknow, 229001, India.
Peter LauxDepartment of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Straße 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Sunil ChoudharyDepartment of Radiotherapy and Radiation Medicine, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, 221005, India.
Ashok Kumar DatusaliaDepartment of Regulatory Toxicology, National Institute of Pharmaceutical Education and Research (NIPER-Raebareli), Lucknow, 229001, India.
Neha GuptaDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Apex Hospital, Varanasi, 221005, India.
Andreas LuchDepartment of Chemical and Product Safety, German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Max-Dohrn-Straße 8-10, 10589, Berlin, Germany.
Anusha GandhiElisabeth-Selbert-Gymnasium, Tübinger Str. 71, 70794, Filderstadt, Germany.
Pranav KulkarniSeeta Nursing Home, Shivaji Nagar, Nashik, Maharashtra, 422002, India.
Banashree NathDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Raebareli, Uttar Pradesh, 229405, India.

Funding

Bundesinstitut für Risikobewertung 1322-735
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The use of nanomaterials in medicine depends largely on nanotoxicological evaluation in order to ensure safe application on living organisms. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (MI) can be used to analyze and interpret large amounts of data in the field of toxicology, such as data from toxicological databases and high-content image-based screening data. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models and nano-quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models can be used to predict the behavior and toxic effects of nanomaterials, respectively. PBPK and Nano-QSAR are prominent ML tool for harmful event analysis that is used to understand the mechanisms by which chemical compounds can cause toxic effects, while toxicogenomics is the study of the genetic basis of toxic responses in living organisms. Despite the potential of these methods, there are still many challenges and uncertainties that need to be addressed in the field. In this review, we provide an overview of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) techniques in nanomedicine and nanotoxicology to better understand the potential toxic effects of these materials at the nanoscale.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNanostructuresMachine LearningNanomedicineAdverse outcome pathway (AOP) analysisArtificial Intelligence (AI)Machine Learning (ML)NanomedicineNanotoxicologyPhysiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models

Identifiers

PMID36878992
PMCPMC10025217

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read6
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.