Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40615561›Full record

ReviewArchives of toxicology2025

Assessing risk of bias in toxicological studies in the era of artificial intelligence.

Thomas Hartung, Sebastian Hoffmann, Paul Whaley

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Archives of toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Proposed Risk of Bias Assessment Tool forPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. AI snake oil? A risk/benefit analysis for toxicology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  6. Evidence-based AI: from trailblazer to trustblazer?Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. AI: the Apollo guidance computer of the Exposome moonshot.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025
    Article
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

3 authors.

Thomas HartungCAAT-Europe, University of Konstanz, Constance, Germany. thartun1@jhu.edu.
Sebastian HoffmannEvidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration and Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Paul WhaleyEvidence-Based Toxicology Collaboration and Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk of bias is a critical factor influencing the reliability and validity of toxicological studies, impacting evidence synthesis and decision-making in regulatory and public health contexts. The traditional approaches for assessing risk of bias are often subjective and time-consuming. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) offer promising solutions for automating and enhancing bias detection and evaluation. This article reviews key types of biases-such as selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases-in in vivo, in vitro, and in silico studies. It further discusses specialized tools, including the SYRCLE and OHAT frameworks, designed to address such biases. The integration of AI-based tools into risk of bias assessments can significantly improve the efficiency, consistency, and accuracy of evaluations. However, AI models are themselves susceptible to algorithmic and data biases, necessitating robust validation and transparency in their development. The article highlights the need for standardized, AI-enabled risk of bias assessment methodologies, training, and policy implementation to mitigate biases in AI-driven analyses. The strategies for leveraging AI to screen studies, detect anomalies, and support systematic reviews are explored. By adopting these advanced methodologies, toxicologists and regulators can enhance the quality and reliability of toxicological evidence, promoting evidence-based practices and ensuring more informed decision-making. The way forward includes fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, developing bias-resilient AI models, and creating a research culture that actively addresses bias through transparent and rigorous practices.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceToxicity TestsToxicologyAnimalsBiasHumansReproducibility of ResultsResearch DesignRisk AssessmentAI biasArtificial intelligenceEvidence-based toxicologyOHATRegulatory toxicologyRisk of biasSYRCLESystematic reviewToxicologyToxRTool

Identifiers

PMID40615561
PMCPMC12367879

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.