Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36966203›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Accurate clinical toxicity prediction using multi-task deep neural nets and contrastive molecular explanations.

Bhanushee Sharma, Vijil Chenthamarakshan, Amit Dhurandhar, Shiranee Pereira, James A Hendler, Jonathan S Dordick, Payel Das

Full text read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. AI/ML-based computational models for toxicity prediction.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Bhanushee SharmaChemical and Biological Engineering, RPI, Troy, NY, USA.
Vijil ChenthamarakshanIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, NY, USA.
Amit DhurandharIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, NY, USA.
Shiranee PereiraICARE, International Center for Alternatives in Research and Education, Chennai, India.
James A HendlerComputer Science, RPI, Troy, NY, USA.
Jonathan S DordickChemical and Biological Engineering, RPI, Troy, NY, USA. dordick@rpi.edu.
Payel DasIBM Research, Yorktown Heights, NY, USA. daspa@us.ibm.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Explainable machine learning for molecular toxicity prediction is a promising approach for efficient drug development and chemical safety. A predictive ML model of toxicity can reduce experimental cost and time while mitigating ethical concerns by significantly reducing animal and clinical testing. Herein, we use a deep learning framework for simultaneously modeling in vitro, in vivo, and clinical toxicity data. Two different molecular input representations are used; Morgan fingerprints and pre-trained SMILES embeddings. A multi-task deep learning model accurately predicts toxicity for all endpoints, including clinical, as indicated by the area under the Receiver Operator Characteristic curve and balanced accuracy. In particular, pre-trained molecular SMILES embeddings as input to the multi-task model improved clinical toxicity predictions compared to existing models in MoleculeNet benchmark. Additionally, our multitask approach is comprehensive in the sense that it is comparable to state-of-the-art approaches for specific endpoints in in vitro, in vivo and clinical platforms. Through both the multi-task model and transfer learning, we were able to indicate the minimal need of in vivo data for clinical toxicity predictions. To provide confidence and explain the model's predictions, we adapt a post-hoc contrastive explanation method that returns pertinent positive and negative features, which correspond well to known mutagenic and reactive toxicophores, such as unsubstituted bonded heteroatoms, aromatic amines, and Michael receptors. Furthermore, toxicophore recovery by pertinent feature analysis captures more of the in vitro (53%) and in vivo (56%), rather than of the clinical (8%), endpoints, and indeed uncovers a preference in known toxicophore data towards in vitro and in vivo experimental data. To our knowledge, this is the first contrastive explanation, using both present and absent substructures, for predictions of clinical and in vivo molecular toxicity.

Indexed as

AminesChemical SafetyAnimalsBenchmarkingDrug DevelopmentKnowledgeAmines

Identifiers

PMID36966203
PMCPMC10039880

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read7
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.