Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41699313›Full record

ArticleArchives of toxicology2026

Building trust in the integration of artificial intelligence into chemical risk assessment: findings from the 2024 ECETOC workshop.

Timothy W Gant, Alistair Boxall, Daniel Burgwinkel, Maryam Zare Jeddi, Ivo Djidrovski, Steffi Friedrichs, Barry Hardy, Thomas Hartung, Daniela Holland, Andreas Karwath and 13 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. 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

23 authors.

Timothy W GantCentre for Radiation, Chemical and Environmental Hazards, Toxicology Department, UK Health Security Agency, Harwell Science Campus, Didcot, OX11 0RQ, UK. tim.gant@ukhsa.gov.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9057-4937
Alistair BoxallDepartment of Environment and Geography, University of York, York, UK.
Daniel BurgwinkelEdelweiss Connect GmbH, Basel, CH, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0003-2954-4327
Maryam Zare JeddiShell Global Solutions International B.V, The Hague, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9505-812X
Ivo DjidrovskiInstitute for Risk Assessment Sciences (IRAS), Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-7637-8515
Steffi FriedrichsAcumenIST SRL, Brussels, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-7276-892X
Barry HardyEdelweiss Connect GmbH, Basel, CH, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-4626-0946
Thomas HartungCenter for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Doerenkam-Zbinden-Chair for Evidence-Based Toxicology, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, US.ORCID 0000-0003-1359-7689
Daniela HollandExxonMobil Petroleum and Chemical BV, Machelen, Belgium.ORCID 0009-0008-2771-4819
Andreas KarwathCollege of Medicine and Health, School of Medical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-6942-3760
Anne KienhuisDepartment of Innovative Testing Strategies, Centre for Health Protection, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6465-4498
Nicole KleinstreuerOffice of the Director (OD), Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives, National Institutes of Health (NIH), Maryland, US.
Zhoumeng LinDepartment of Environmental and Global Health, College of Public Health and Health Professions, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, US.ORCID 0000-0002-8731-8366
Emma L MarczyloLuxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), Esch Sur Alzette, Luxembourg.
Antonino MarvugliaLuxembourg Institute of Science and Technology (LIST), Esch Sur Alzette, Luxembourg.ORCID 0000-0002-8360-8040
Hua QianExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc, Spring, TX, US.ORCID 0000-0001-8168-9548
Bennard van RavenzwaayDivision of Toxicology, Wageningen University, Wageningen, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4264-9217
Paul ReesDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Swansea University, Bay Campus, Swansea, SA18EN, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7715-6914
Haralambos SarimveisSchool of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece.ORCID 0000-0002-8607-9965
Tewes TralauGerman Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Germany.
Lucy WilmotECETOC, Rue Belliard 40, 1040 Bruxelles, Belgium.
Adam ZalewskiPharmaceuticals, Preclinical Development, Bayer Research & Development, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8341-9565
David RouquiéBayer SAS, Bayer Crop Science, Sophia-Antipolis, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceToxicologyAnimalsHumansMachine LearningRisk AssessmentTrustAIExplainable AIFAIR dataHazard and risk assessmentToxicologyTrust

Identifiers

PMID41699313
PMCPMC13086730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.