ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2026
A comprehensive evaluation of advanced methods for identifying structural alerts using extensive toxicity data.
Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With the disclosure of the important role of substructural alerts (SA) in drug development and toxicity evaluation, many automatic substructure extraction tools based on different theoretical knowledge have been reported in recent years. To compare the emphasis of various substructure extraction methods and the reliability of their results, we were encouraged to conduct a comprehensive analysis of seven representative tools to find the best one. In this paper, we introduced a well-designed evaluation of seven popular tools (Bioalerts, KRFP, MoSS, PySmash_circular, PySmash_group, PySmash_path, and SARpy) based on 43 toxicity datasets, consisting of four components: comparison of substructures derived by different methods, comparison of predictive models based on substructural rules, comparison of the efficiency of extracting toxic substructures, and the effect of SAs on quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) predictive models. The results demonstrated that PySmash_circular performed best overall, with satisfactory results in substructure information carrying and the rule-based predictive models. PySmash_path and Bioalerts were also recommended for their similar performance to PySmash_circular, but the main problem was that they took too much time and generated too many substructures. Specifically, Bioalerts and PySmash_circular could obtain substructures carrying richer information, while SARpy had the best predictive rule-based models, but it only focuses on precision (PR) value in the evaluation of individual SA. More than that, the substructures obtained by all 7 methods can enhance the recognition ability of the QSAR models for toxic compounds and make them interpretable. Finally, we have also made a baseline substructure set of 43 toxicity endpoints available to the public to facilitate further development of drug research and environmental safety assessment in a rapid and accurate direction.Scientific Contribution: Based on 43 toxicity datasets, we conducted a comprehensive evaluation of 7 representative substructure extraction tools from both the perspective of individual substructure and substructure-based models. This work not only enables users to make more autonomous choices of the optimal substructure extraction tool, but also provides the public with a benchmark substructure set of 43 toxicity endpoints, promoting the further development of computational toxicology.
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.