ArticleArchives of toxicology2026
Building trust in the integration of artificial intelligence into chemical risk assessment: findings from the 2024 ECETOC workshop.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2026. 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.
- Democratizing Artificial Intelligence in Toxicology: Real-World Applications and Automated Computational Workflows.Chemical research in toxicology · 2026Review
- Leveraging developmental neurotoxicity data in zebrafish embryos through the use of artificial intelligence methods.Frontiers in 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI) is increasingly influencing chemical risk assessment, enabling faster, more comprehensive, and potentially more ethical assessments. The application of AI in chemical risk assessment refers to both generative and predictive algorithms encompassing machine learning, to analyse complex chemical, biological, and environmental data and provide insights into adverse effect potential for humans and ecosystems. AI systems support the prediction of chemical hazards, exposure levels, and adverse effects by learning from experimental results, mechanistic models, and regulatory datasets, thereby enhancing the efficiency of safety evaluations.In October 2024, ECETOC held an international workshop, with experts from academia, industry, and regulatory bodies, to reflect upon the historical challenges in integrating multidimensional omics technologies into chemical regulation and explore the current capabilities and future potential of AI in toxicology and regulatory science. Discussions emphasised that implementation of Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (FAIR) data principles is not just a best practice but rather a prerequisite for building transparent, reliable, and unbiased AI systems. The reliability of AI in producing scientifically valid and socially responsible outcomes depends fundamentally on the availability of FAIR data. However, ensuring trustworthiness also requires robust governance frameworks that go beyond data and human oversight. Critical enablers of responsible AI in chemical risk assessment are rigorous governance, explainability, fit-for-purpose applications, and human oversight. ECETOC supports the development of flexible and iterative frameworks advancing development, validation, transparency, accountability, and trust in AI applications in chemicals regulation.
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.