ArticleToxics2024
Increasing Accessibility of Bayesian Network-Based Defined Approaches for Skin Sensitisation Potency Assessment.
Article in Toxics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comprehensive In Vitro Safety Assessment ofToxics · 2025Article
- SbD4Skin by EosCloud: Integrating multi-view molecular representation for predicting skin sensitization, irritation, and acute dermal toxicity.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Skin sensitisation is a critical adverse effect assessed to ensure the safety of compounds and materials exposed to the skin. Alongside the development of new approach methodologies (NAMs), defined approaches (DAs) have been established to promote skin sensitisation potency assessment by adopting and integrating standardised in vitro, in chemico, and in silico methods with specified data analysis procedures to achieve reliable and reproducible predictions. The incorporation of additional NAMs could help increase accessibility and flexibility. Using superior algorithms may help improve the accuracy of hazard and potency assessment and build confidence in the results. Here, we introduce two new DA models, with the aim to build DAs on freely available software and the newly developed kDPRA for covalent binding of a chemical to skin peptides and proteins. The new DA models are built on an existing Bayesian network (BN) modelling approach and expand on it. The new DA models include kDPRA data as one of the in vitro parameters and utilise in silico inputs from open-source QSAR models. Both approaches perform at least on par with the existing BN DA and show 63% and 68% accuracy when predicting four LLNA potency classes, respectively. We demonstrate the value of the Bayesian network's confidence indications for predictions, as they provide a measure for differentiating between highly accurate and reliable predictions (accuracies up to 87%) in contrast to low-reliability predictions associated with inaccurate predictions.
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.