ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2025
Systematic analysis of hepatotoxicity: combining literature mining and AI language models.
Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The body of toxicological knowledge and literature is expanding at an accelerating pace. This rapid growth presents significant challenges for researchers, who must stay abreast with latest studies while also synthesizing the vast amount of published information. Goal: Our goal is to automatically identify potential hepatoxicants from over 50,000 compounds using the wealth of scientific publications and knowledge. Methods: We employ and compare three distinct methods for automatic information extraction from unstructured text: (1) text mining (2) word embeddings and (3) large language models. These approaches are combined to calculate a hepatotoxicity score for over 50,000 compounds. We assess the performance of the different methods with a use case on Drug-Induced Liver Injury (DILI). Results: We evaluated hepatotoxicity for over 50,000 compounds and calculated a hepatotoxicity score for each compound. Our results indicate that text mining is effective for this purpose, achieving an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.8 in DILI validation. Large language models performed even better, with an AUC of 0.85, thanks to their ability to interpret the semantic context accurately. Combining these methods further improved performance, yielding an AUC of 0.87 in DILI validation. All findings are available for download to support further research on toxicity assessment. Conclusions: We demonstrated that automated text mining is able to successfully assess the toxicity of compounds. A text mining approach seems to be superior to word embeddings. However, the application of a large language model with prompt engineering showed the best performance.
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.