ArticleToxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology2024
Cross study analyses of SEND data: toxicity profile classification.
Article in Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transforming animal study toxicology reports into structured, harmonized data using large language models.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Comment on "A systematic review and meta‑analysis of side effects influenced by non‑surgical treatments in African cancer patients".Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- sendigR: an R package to leverage the value of CDISC SEND datasets for cross-study analysis.Frontiers in toxicology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A SEND toxicology data transformation, harmonization, and analysis platform were created to improve the identification of unique findings related to the intended target, species, and duration of dosing using data from multiple studies. The lack of a standardized digital format for data analysis had impeded large-scale analysis of in vivo toxicology studies. The CDISC SEND standard enables the analysis of data from multiple studies performed by different laboratories. This work describes methods to analyze data and automate cross-study analysis of toxicology studies. Cross-study analysis can be used to understand a single compound's toxicity profile across all studies performed and/or to evaluate on-target versus off-target toxicity for multiple compounds intended for the same pharmacological target. This work involved development of data harmonization/transformation strategies to enable cross-study analysis of both numerical and categorical SEND data. Four de-identified SEND datasets from the BioCelerate database were used for the analyses. Toxicity profiles for key organ systems were developed for liver, kidney, male reproductive tract, endocrine system, and hematopoietic system using SEND domains. A cross-study analysis dashboard with a built-in user-defined scoring system was created for custom analyses, including visualizations to evaluate data at the organ system level and drill down into individual animal data. This data analysis provides the tools for scientists to compare toxicity profiles across multiple studies using SEND. A cross-study analysis of 2 different compounds intended for the same pharmacological target is described and the analyses indicate potential on-target effects to liver, kidney, and hematopoietic systems.
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.