ReviewArchives of toxicology2025
Assessing risk of bias in toxicological studies in the era of artificial intelligence.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Causality analysis of toxicological mechanisms in networked systems such as adverse outcome pathway networks.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- Building trust in the integration of artificial intelligence into chemical risk assessment: findings from the 2024 ECETOC workshop.Archives of toxicology · 2026Article
- Proposed Risk of Bias Assessment Tool forPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Charting exposomethics: a roadmap for the ethical foundations of the human exposome project.Human genomics · 2026Review
- AI snake oil? A risk/benefit analysis for toxicology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Evidence-based AI: from trailblazer to trustblazer?Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Next generation validation for next generation risk assessment.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Review
- Navigating the AI Frontier in Toxicology: Trends, Trust, and Transformation.Current environmental health reports · 2025Review
- The Nephroprotective Effects of Alpha-Mangostin for Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Microphysiological systems as a pillar of the Human Exposome Project.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2025Review
- AI: the Apollo guidance computer of the Exposome moonshot.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.