ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025
Can graph similarity metrics be helpful for analogue identification as part of a read-across approach?
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Building a compendium of expert driven read-across cases to facilitate an analysis of the contribution that different similarity contexts play in read-across performance.Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.