ArticleToxicology reports2025
Risk-based in silico mutagenic assessment of benzodiazepine impurities using three QSAR tools.
Article in Toxicology reports, 2025. 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.
- Review
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
Benzodiazepines, widely prescribed psychoactive drugs, may contain DNA-reactive (mutagenic) impurities formed during synthesis, posing significant health risks. Owing to animal testing requirements, traditional in vitro and in vivo methods for assessing mutagenicity are time-consuming, costly, and ethically challenging. Computational approaches, particularly in silico (Q)SAR models, provide an efficient alternative for predicting toxicity based on chemical structure. This study evaluated the mutagenic potential of 88 benzodiazepine-related impurities using three freely accessible (Q)SAR tools: TOXTREE (Ames Test Alert by ISS), Toxicity Estimation Software Tool (TEST) with nearest neighbour and consensus models, and VEGA, a QSAR tool that integrates multiple mutagenicity prediction models, including the CAESAR Ames Mutagenicity Model. The tools were validated using a dataset of 99 chemicals with known Ames test results. TOXTREE exhibited the highest sensitivity (80.7 %) and accuracy (72.2 %) for predicting mutagenicity, whereas VEGA and TEST provided balanced accuracy (66.2 % and 66.7 %, respectively) and high specificity (74.5 % and 76.6 %, respectively). The risk assessment categorised 21 impurities as high risk, 11 as moderate-high risk, 28 as moderate-low risk, 22 as low risk, and 6 as equivocal, with expert review finalising classifications. The findings emphasise the integration of multiple (Q)SAR tools for early mutagenicity detection, regulatory compliance, and reduced reliance on animal testing. Further refinement of predictive models and additional computational approaches are recommended to enhance the accuracy of the risk assessment.
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.