ReviewJournal of environmental science and health. Part C, Toxicology and carcinogenesis2025
Unlocking the potential of AI: Machine learning and deep learning models for predicting carcinogenicity of chemicals.
Review in Journal of environmental science and health. Part C, Toxicology and carcinogenesis, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leveraging machine learning for selective cannabinoid ligand discovery: methods, challenges, and opportunities.Expert opinion on drug discovery · 2026Review
- Integrating Molecular Dynamics, Molecular Docking, and Machine Learning for Predicting SARS-CoV-2 Papain-like Protease Binders.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Developmental toxicity: artificial intelligence-powered assessments.Trends in pharmacological sciences · 2025Review
- Developing predictive models for µ opioid receptor binding using machine learning and deep learning techniques.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Article
- A refined set of RxNorm drug names for enhancing unstructured data analysis in drug safety surveillance.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The escalating apprehension surrounding the carcinogenic potential of chemicals emphasizes the imperative need for efficient methods of assessing carcinogenicity. Conventional experimental approaches such as in vitro and in vivo assays, albeit effective, suffer from being costly and time-consuming. In response to this challenge, new alternative methodologies, notably machine learning and deep learning techniques, have attracted attention for their potential in developing carcinogenicity prediction models. This article reviews the progress in predicting carcinogenicity using various machine learning and deep learning algorithms. A comparative analysis on these developed models reveals that support vector machine, random forest, and ensemble learning are commonly preferred for their robustness and effectiveness in predicting chemical carcinogenicity. Conversely, models based on deep learning algorithms, such as feedforward neural network, convolutional neural network, graph convolutional neural network, capsule neural network, and hybrid neural networks, exhibit promising capabilities but are limited by the size of available carcinogenicity datasets. This review provides a comprehensive analysis of current machine learning and deep learning models for carcinogenicity prediction, underscoring the importance of high-quality and large datasets. These observations are anticipated to catalyze future advancements in developing effective and generalizable machine learning and deep learning models for predicting chemical carcinogenicity.
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.