Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38244040›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2024

Artificial intelligence (AI)-it's the end of the tox as we know it (and I feel fine).

Nicole Kleinstreuer, Thomas Hartung

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. AI snake oil? A risk/benefit analysis for toxicology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    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

2 authors.

Nicole KleinstreuerNIH/NIEHS/DTT/NICEATM, Durham, NC, USA.
Thomas HartungBloomberg School of Public Health, Doerenkamp-Zbinden Chair for Evidence-Based Toxicology, Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. THartung@jhu.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-1359-7689

Funding

NIEHS NIH HHS Intramural
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The rapid progress of AI impacts diverse scientific disciplines, including toxicology, and has the potential to transform chemical safety evaluation. Toxicology has evolved from an empirical science focused on observing apical outcomes of chemical exposure, to a data-rich field ripe for AI integration. The volume, variety and velocity of toxicological data from legacy studies, literature, high-throughput assays, sensor technologies and omics approaches create opportunities but also complexities that AI can help address. In particular, machine learning is well suited to handle and integrate large, heterogeneous datasets that are both structured and unstructured-a key challenge in modern toxicology. AI methods like deep neural networks, large language models, and natural language processing have successfully predicted toxicity endpoints, analyzed high-throughput data, extracted facts from literature, and generated synthetic data. Beyond automating data capture, analysis, and prediction, AI techniques show promise for accelerating quantitative risk assessment by providing probabilistic outputs to capture uncertainties. AI also enables explanation methods to unravel mechanisms and increase trust in modeled predictions. However, issues like model interpretability, data biases, and transparency currently limit regulatory endorsement of AI. Multidisciplinary collaboration is needed to ensure development of interpretable, robust, and human-centered AI systems. Rather than just automating human tasks at scale, transformative AI can catalyze innovation in how evidence is gathered, data are generated, hypotheses are formed and tested, and tasks are performed to usher new paradigms in chemical safety assessment. Used judiciously, AI has immense potential to advance toxicology into a more predictive, mechanism-based, and evidence-integrated scientific discipline to better safeguard human and environmental wellbeing across diverse populations.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceChemical SafetyCatalysisHumansMachine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerArtificial intelligenceChemical safetyComputational toxicologyPredictive modelingRisk assessmentToxicology

Identifiers

PMID38244040
PMCPMC10861653

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.