GuidelineJournal of chemical information and modeling2025
Toward Explainable Carcinogenicity Prediction: An Integrated Cheminformatics Approach and Consensus Framework for Possibly Carcinogenic Chemicals.
Guideline in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- LMF-CP: An Interpretable Multimodal Late-Fusion Framework for Compound Carcinogenicity Prediction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Cardiosim-Tox: an interpretable multitask deep learning QSAR platform with multimodal feature fusion for predicting hERG, Cav1.2, and Nav1.5 blockade risk and potency.Archives of toxicology · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A carcinogenicity assessment of possibly carcinogenic chemicals (International Agency for Research on Cancer: IARC class 2B) was conducted using a consensus framework constructed from three complementary machine learning models: BiLSTM with MACCS fingerprints, LightGBM with RDKit descriptors, and Random Forest (RF) with E-state features. These models were developed and rigorously evaluated on benchmark carcinogenicity data sets, with LightGBM emerging as the top performer (accuracy = 0.800, MCC = 0.615, AUROC = 0.882, sensitivity = 0.739, specificity = 0.857). Consistent and competitive performance was also observed for RF and BiLSTM, affirming the reliability of individual predictions. Notably, LightGBM maintained strong generalization ability on independent human carcinogen test sets from IARC and IRIS (accuracy = 0.753, MCC = 0.535, AUROC = 0.842). For the ISSCAN internal test set, the top three models achieved MCC values ranging from 0.564 to 0.615, with AUROC scores between 0.858 and 0.882. For the human carcinogen test set, the top three models attained MCC values from 0.335 to 0.535 and AUROC scores ranging from 0.785 to 0.842. The consensus model was subsequently applied to 47 within-domain compounds from the 2B category, classifying them into 16 potential carcinogens, 8 presumed noncarcinogens, and 23 cases with inconclusive results. To uncover structural correlates, a SHAP-based interpretation of the BiLSTM model was performed, revealing discriminative molecular features including MACCS fingerprint keys and core Bemis-Murcko scaffolds associated with predicted carcinogenicity. To support practical applications, a freely accessible web server for carcinogenicity assessment has been developed and is available at https://carcinogenicity-predictor.streamlit.app.
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.