ArticlePeerJ2024
Development of machine learning models for the prediction of the skin sensitization potential of cosmetic compounds.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Decoding Cyclodextrins in Skin Applications: Structure, Mechanisms, and Safety in Cosmetic and Dermatologic Formulations (Part I).International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Optimizing skin sensitization prediction across activity cliffs: a comparative analysis of K-nearest neighbours vs random Forest.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To enhance the accuracy of allergen detection in cosmetic compounds, we developed a co-culture system that combines HaCaT keratinocytes (transfected with a luciferase plasmid driven by the AKR1C2 promoter) and THP-1 cells for machine learning applications. Methods: Following chemical exposure, cell cytotoxicity was assessed using CCK-8 to determine appropriate stimulation concentrations. RNA-Seq was subsequently employed to analyze THP-1 cells, followed by differential expression gene (DEG) analysis and weighted gene co-expression net-work analysis (WGCNA). Using two data preprocessing methods and three feature extraction techniques, we constructed and validated models with eight machine learning algorithms. Results: Our results demonstrated the effectiveness of this integrated approach. The best performing models were random forest (RF) and voom-based diagonal quadratic discriminant analysis (voomDQDA), both achieving 100% accuracy. Support vector machine (SVM) and voom based nearest shrunken centroids (voomNSC) showed excellent performance with 96.7% test accuracy, followed by voom-based diagonal linear discriminant analysis (voomDLDA) at 95.2%. Nearest shrunken centroids (NSC), Poisson linear discriminant analysis (PLDA) and negative binomial linear discriminant analysis (NBLDA) achieved 90.5% and 90.2% accuracy, respectively. K-nearest neighbors (KNN) showed the lowest accuracy at 85.7%. Conclusion: This study highlights the potential of integrating co-culture systems, RNA-Seq, and machine learning to develop more accurate and comprehensive
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.