Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40278615›Full record

ArticleToxics2025

A Statistical Exploration of QSAR Models in Cancer Risk Assessment: A Case Study on Pesticide-Active Substances and Metabolites.

Serena Greco, Cecilia Bossa, Chiara Laura Battistelli, Alessandro Giuliani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Serena GrecoEnvironment and Health Department, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Cecilia BossaEnvironment and Health Department, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2084-2902
Chiara Laura BattistelliEnvironment and Health Department, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2386-0727
Alessandro GiulianiEnvironment and Health Department, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4640-804X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Data generated using new approach methodologies (NAMs), including in silico, in vitro, and in chemico approaches, are increasingly important for the hazard identification of chemicals. Among NAMs, (quantitative) structure-activity relationship (Q)SAR models occupy a peculiar position by allowing (in principle) a toxicity estimate on the sole basis of chemical structural information, leveraging upon toxicity profiles of already tested chemicals (a training set). Consequently, the metrics adopted for the estimation of both the congruence of the test chemicals with the training set and the risk categorization are of paramount importance. This paper comprises a small-scale, mainly methodological study to investigate these aspects and assess the general coherence between the results from different (Q)SAR models applied to the assessment of the carcinogenicity of pesticide-active substances and metabolites. The results of the present study underline the significant potential of using (Q)SAR models, together with limitations, such as inconsistencies in results across models and the intrinsic constraints of their applicability domain. The critical role of a priori strategies adopted in defining the applicability domain of the models is highlighted, emphasizing the need for user-transparent definitions. This is a crucial step for a sensible integration of the information coming from different NAMs.

Indexed as

computational toxicologynew approach methodologiesnon-animal approachespesticidesprincipal component analysis(Q)SARrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID40278615
PMCPMC12030765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.