ArticleEBioMedicine2025
Drug toxicity prediction based on genotype-phenotype differences between preclinical models and humans.
Article in EBioMedicine, 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.
- Network-based machine learning to identify biomarkers for systemic lupus erythematosus.BMC biology · 2026Article
- Predicting toxicity and bioactivity of the chemical exposome: a case study for the blood exposome database.Journal of cheminformatics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA major hurdle in drug development is the poor translatability of preclinical toxicity findings to human outcomes, largely due to biological differences between humans and model organisms. This gap leads to high clinical trial attrition and post-marketing drug withdrawals. Existing toxicity prediction methods primarily rely on chemical properties and typically overlook these inter-species (or -organism) differences.
methodsWe developed a machine learning framework that incorporates genotype-phenotype differences (GPD) between preclinical models (cell lines and mice) and humans to improve the prediction of human drug toxicity. Clinical risk information on drugs (e.g., clinical trials or post-marketing surveillance) was obtained without bias from published reports, data sources, and databases. GPD of drug target was assessed across three biological contexts: gene essentiality, tissue expression profiles, and network connectivity. We benchmarked the GPD-based model against state-of-the-art toxicity predictors and evaluated its performance using independent datasets and chronological validation.
findingsUsing a dataset of 434 risky and 790 approved drugs, GPD features were significantly associated with drug failures due to severe adverse events. The Random Forest model integrating GPD with chemical features demonstrated enhanced predictive accuracy (AUPRC = 0.63 vs. baseline 0.35; AUROC = 0.75 vs. baseline 0.50), particularly for neurotoxicity and cardiovascular toxicity, two major causes of clinical failures that were previously overlooked due to their chemical properties alone. Our model outperformed state-of-the-art chemical structure-based models and demonstrated a practical ability to anticipate future drug withdrawals in real-world settings.
interpretationIncorporating differences in genotype-phenotype relationships offers a biologically grounded strategy for drug toxicity prediction. Our framework enables early identification of high-risk drugs in clinical development. This approach holds promise for reducing development costs, improving patient safety, and increasing the success rate of therapeutic approvals.
fundingKorean National Research Foundation (2020R1A6A1A03047902, RS-2025-16070008), IITP (2019-0-01906, Artificial Intelligence Graduate School Program and IITP-2024-RS-2024-00441244, Global Data-X Leader HRD program, POSTECH).
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.