Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41816015›Full record

ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025

Can graph similarity metrics be helpful for analogue identification as part of a read-across approach?

Brett Hagan, Imran Shah, Grace Patlewicz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Brett HaganORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, TN 37830, USA.
Imran ShahCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
Grace PatlewiczCenter for Computational Toxicology & Exposure (CCTE), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3863-9689

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Read-across is a technique used to fill data gaps for substances lacking specific hazard data. The technique relies on identifying source analogues with relevant data that are 'similar' to the substance of interest (target). Typically, source analogues are identified on the basis of structural similarity but the evaluation of their suitability for read-across depends on other contexts of similarity. This manuscript aimed to review the ways in which source analogues are identified for read-across using chemical fingerprint/scaffold approaches before describing graph-based approaches including; graph kernel, graph embedding, and deep learning. To demonstrate how these could be practically used for analogue identification, five different toxicity datasets of varying size and diversity were selected that had been the subject of previous read-across or QSAR analyses. One dataset was an analogue set whereas the other four datasets comprised substances evaluated for their skin sensitisation, skin irritation, fathead minnow aquatic toxicity and genotoxicity potential. The analogues and their associated similarities using the different graph based approaches were compared with the outcomes from two chemical fingerprint approaches (ToxPrints and Morgan). The results for each dataset are briefly described. Based on the examples evaluated, graph kernel approaches were found to have some promise, in contrast unsupervised whole graph embedding approaches were ineffective for all the datasets evaluated. Graph convolutional networks produced meaningful embeddings for the genotoxicity dataset evaluated. Depending on use case, availability and size of training data, graph similarity approaches have the potential to play a larger role in analogue identification and evaluation for read-across.

Indexed as

Graph Convolutional Networks (GCNs)Graph kernelsGraph similarityRead-across

Identifiers

PMID41816015
PMCPMC12973264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.