ArticleChemical research in toxicology2024
Systematic Approaches for the Encoding of Chemical Groups: A Case Study.
Article in Chemical research in toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
Regulatory authorities aim to organize substances into groups to facilitate prioritization within hazard and risk assessment processes. Often, such chemical groupings are not explicitly defined by structural rules or physicochemical property information. This is largely due to how these groupings are developed, namely, a manual expert curation process, which in turn makes updating and refining groupings, as new substances are evaluated, a practical challenge. Herein, machine learning methods were leveraged to build models that could preliminarily assign substances to predefined groups. A set of 86 groupings containing 2,184 substances as published on the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) website were mapped to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Distributed Toxicity Structure Database (DSSTox) content to extract chemical and structural information. Substances were represented using Morgan fingerprints, and two machine learning approaches were used to classify test substances into 56 groups containing at least 10 substances with a structural representation in the data set: k-nearest neighbor (kNN) and random forest (RF), that led to mean 5-fold cross-validation test accuracies (average F1 scores) of 0.781 and 0.853, respectively. With a 9% improvement, the RF classifier was significantly more accurate than KNN (
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.