Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37126467›Full record

ArticleChemical research in toxicology2023

The Good, The Bad, and The Perplexing: Structural Alerts and Read-Across for Predicting Skin Sensitization Using Human Data.

Emily Golden, Daniel C Ukaegbu, Peter Ranslow, Robert H Brown, Thomas Hartung, Alexandra Maertens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemical research in toxicology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

6 authors.

Emily GoldenCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9760-143X
Daniel C UkaegbuCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, United States.
Peter RanslowConsortium for Environmental Risk Management (CERM), Hallowell, Maine 04347, United States.
Robert H BrownSchool of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21287, United States.
Thomas HartungCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, United States.
Alexandra MaertensCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2077-2011

Funding

Traning Program in Environmental Health SciencesT32ES007141 · NIEHS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Marsha Wills-Karp · 1985 to 2026
$22.2M
NIEHS NIH HHS T32 ES007141
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In our earlier work (Golden et al., 2021), we showed 70-80% accuracies for several skin sensitization computational tools using human data. Here, we expanded the data set using the NICEATM human skin sensitization database to create a final data set of 1355 discrete chemicals (largely negative, ∼70%). Using this expanded data set, we analyzed model performance and evaluated mispredictions using Toxtree (v 3.1.0), OECD QSAR Toolbox (v 4.5), VEGA's (1.2.0 BETA) CAESAR (v 2.1.7), and a

Indexed as

Quantitative Structure-Activity RelationshipSkinComputer SimulationHumans

Identifiers

PMID37126467
PMCPMC10189792

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.