ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2025
A deep-learning approach to predict reproductive toxicity of chemicals using communicative message passing neural network.
Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neuroendocrine Disruption of Reproduction by Bisphenols and Phthalates: From Molecular Mechanisms to Reproductive Outcomes.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Prediction and mechanistic insights into drug-induced reproductive toxicity through integrated machine learning, FAERS-based signal comparison, and network toxicology analyses.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- Comprehensive Pediatric Health Risk Stratification Using an AI-Driven Framework in Children Aged 2 to 8 Years: Design and Validation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
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
Reproductive toxicity is a concern critical to human health and chemical safety assessment. Recently, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced plans to assess toxicity with artificial intelligence-based computational models instead of animal studies in "a win-win for public health and ethics." In this study, we used a reproductive toxicity dataset using Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry Specifications (SMILES) to represent 1091 reproductively toxic and 1063 non-toxic small-molecule compounds. A repeated nested cross-validation procedure was applied, in which the dataset was randomly partitioned into five distinct folds in the outer loop, each time, one fold serving as the test set. In the inner loop, a similar procedure was also repeated five times, with 12.5% each time serving as the validation set. We first evaluated the performance of classical machine learning (ML) methods such as Random Forest and Extreme Gradient Boosting on predicting reproductive toxicity, using standard model evaluation metrics including accuracy score (ACC), the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristics curve (ROC) and F1 score. Our analyses indicate that these methods' overall results were mediocre and insufficient for high-throughput screening. To overcome these limitations, we adopted the Communicative Message Passing Neural Network (CMPNN) framework, which incorporates a communicative kernel and a message booster module. Our results show that our ReproTox-CMPNN model outperforms the current best baselines in both embedding quality and predictive accuracy. In independent test sets, ReproTox-CMPNN achieved a mean AUC of 0.946, ACC of 0.857 and F1 score of 0.846, surpassing traditional algorithms to establish itself as a new state-of-the-art model in this field. These findings demonstrate that CMPNN's deep capture of multi-level molecular relationships offers an efficient and reliable computational tool for rapid chemical safety screening and 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.