Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41265416›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental analysis, health and toxicology2025

Big data and AI: Potential and challenges for digital transformation in toxicology.

Donghyeon Kim, Jinhee Choi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental analysis, health and toxicology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Four Decades of Environmental Analysis, Health and Toxicology.Environmental analysis, health and toxicology · 2025
    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

2 authors.

Donghyeon KimSchool of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jinhee ChoiSchool of Environmental Engineering, University of Seoul, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

Ministry of Environment 2021003310005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Toxicology has evolved from an observational science to predictive science, driven by advances in computational methods and large-scale data generation. Advances in computing power and the rapid accumulation of toxicological big data have opened new opportunities to modernize chemical risk assessment through artificial intelligence (AI). This study explores the current status of toxicity databases and key methodologies of AI such as machine learning, deep learning, and large language models. The study further examines representative case studies, which leverage AI-based toxicity prediction models in chemical prioritization and others. Despite the advancements, critical challenges remain, including the limited availability of high-quality, homogeneous datasets and the black-box nature of AI models, which hinder regulatory acceptance. To address these issues, this study emphasizes the need for explainable AI and the integration of the adverse outcome pathway framework to enhance model interpretability. By outlining future research directions and advocating for transparent, reproducible AI models, this study contributes to advancing regulatory science, chemical safety assessment, and the broader adoption of AI as new approach methodologies (NAMs) for next generation risk assessment (NGRA).

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceBig dataNew approach methodologiesNext generation risk assessmentToxicity prediction

Identifiers

PMID41265416
PMCPMC12897483

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.