Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40831778›Full record

ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025

SbD4Skin by EosCloud: Integrating multi-view molecular representation for predicting skin sensitization, irritation, and acute dermal toxicity.

Nikoletta-Maria Koutroumpa, Dimitra-Danai Varsou, Panagiotis D Kolokathis, Maria Antoniou, Konstantinos D Papavasileiou, Eleni Papadopoulou, Anastasios G Papadiamantis, Andreas Tsoumanis, Georgia Melagraki, Milica Velimirovic and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. ARACRA: Automated RNA-seq Analysis for Chemical Risk Assessment.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026
    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

11 authors.

Nikoletta-Maria KoutroumpaEntelos Institute, Nicosia 2102, Cyprus.
Dimitra-Danai VarsouNovaMechanics MIKE, Piraeus 18545, Greece.
Panagiotis D KolokathisNovaMechanics MIKE, Piraeus 18545, Greece.
Maria AntoniouEntelos Institute, Nicosia 2102, Cyprus.
Konstantinos D PapavasileiouNovaMechanics MIKE, Piraeus 18545, Greece.
Eleni PapadopoulouEntelos Institute, Nicosia 2102, Cyprus.
Anastasios G PapadiamantisEntelos Institute, Nicosia 2102, Cyprus.
Andreas TsoumanisNovaMechanics MIKE, Piraeus 18545, Greece.
Georgia MelagrakiDivision of Physical Sciences & Applications, Hellenic Military Academy, Vari 16673, Greece.
Milica VelimirovicFlemish Institute for Technological Research (VITO), Boeretang 200, Mol 2400, Belgium.
Antreas AfantitisEntelos Institute, Nicosia 2102, Cyprus.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Assessing chemical toxicity is essential for understanding potential risks to human health. However, ethical, financial, and scientific challenges have driven the demand for non-animal testing methods. This study introduces a computational framework that leverages diverse molecular representations, including MACCS keys, Morgan fingerprints, and Mordred descriptors, to predict skin sensitization, irritation/corrosion, and acute dermal toxicity. Different molecular representations for skin toxicity-related endpoints were first evaluated using three machine learning algorithms (Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, and k-Nearest Neighbors), then combined into a unified input space for training a fully connected neural network (FCNN). Comparative analyses indicate that this multi-view FCNN model offers superior or comparable predictive performance relative to single-representation models, achieving area under the curve (AUC) values of up to 0.91 for irritation/corrosion, 0.88 for sensitization, and 0.82 for acute dermal toxicity on test sets. Additional validation on known toxicants further confirms the framework's robustness, correctly identifying 0.86 of skin sensitizers, 0.89 of irritants, and 0.86 of dermally toxic compounds. Shapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP) analyses highlight the most influential molecular features, providing mechanistic insights and enhancing model transparency. To promote broader adoption and reduce reliance on animal testing, the developed models are freely available through the SbD4Skin (Safe by Design for Skin) web platform (https://eoscloud.entelos.eu/ssbd4chem/sbd4skin/), offering a user-friendly tool for chemical risk assessment and regulatory decision-making. The dataset and model developed in this study have been FAIRified and made available in machine-actionable and modelling-ready formats, supporting transparency, reuse, and regulatory acceptance.

Indexed as

acute dermal toxicityEosCloudexplainable predictionsmachine learningmolecular representationsSbD4Skinskin irritationSkin sensitization

Identifiers

PMID40831778
PMCPMC12358665

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.