Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40329377›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2025

Revisiting the approaches to DNA damage detection in genetic toxicology: insights and regulatory implications.

Sulaiman Mohammed Alnasser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

1 author.

Sulaiman Mohammed AlnasserDepartment of Pharmacology and Toxicology, College of Pharmacy, Qassim University, Qassim, 51452, Saudi Arabia. sm.alnasser@qu.edu.sa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genetic toxicology is crucial for evaluating the potential risks of chemicals and drugs to human health and the environment. The emergence of high-throughput technologies has transformed this field, providing more efficient, cost-effective, and ethically sound methods for genotoxicity testing. It utilizes advanced screening techniques, including automated in vitro assays and computational models to rapidly assess the genotoxic potential of thousands of compounds simultaneously. This review explores the transformation of traditional in vitro and in vivo methods into computational models for genotoxicity assessment. By leveraging advances in machine learning, artificial intelligence, and high-throughput screening, computational approaches are increasingly replacing conventional methods. Coupling conventional screening with artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) models has significantly enhanced their predictive capabilities, enabling the identification of genotoxicity signatures tied to molecular structures and biological pathways. Regulatory agencies increasingly support such methodologies as humane alternatives to traditional animal models, provided they are validated and exhibit strong predictive power. Standardization efforts, including the establishment of common endpoints across testing approaches, are pivotal for enhancing comparability and fostering consensus in toxicological assessments. Initiatives like ToxCast exemplify the successful incorporation of HTS data into regulatory decision-making, demonstrating that well-interpreted in vitro results can align with in vivo outcomes. Innovations in testing methodologies, global data sharing, and real-time monitoring continue to refine the precision and personalization of risk assessments, promising a transformative impact on safety evaluations and regulatory frameworks.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceGenetic toxicologyHigh throughput screeningIn vitro testingMulti-Omics technologies

Identifiers

PMID40329377
PMCPMC12054138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.