ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2025
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.
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. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Read-across is a data-gap filling technique used to predict the toxicity of a target chemical based on data from similar analogues. It is predominantly performed through expert-driven assessments which can limit reproducibility and broader acceptance. Data-driven approaches such as Generalised Read-Across (GenRA) offer the potential to generate more reproducible read-across predictions with quantified uncertainties and performance metrics. A key challenge is reconciling expert- and data-driven approaches particularly in how analogues are identified, evaluated and used to derive predictions. A critical aspect of analogue selection lies in understanding the relative contribution of different similarity contexts e.g. whether structural similarity plays a larger role than metabolism similarity. This study explored these considerations by compiling a compendium of expert-driven read-across assessments for repeated dose toxicity endpoints from peer reviewed and grey literature. Pairwise similarity was quantified across structural, physicochemical, metabolic and reactivity features within each case and a prediction model was developed to evaluate the contribution of each similarity context in analogue selection. Although the dataset comprised 157 read-across cases and 695 unique substances, it was limited in size, heterogeneous in origin and variable in analogue selection criteria and use contexts. These factors constrain generalisability of the findings and indicate that conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, the qualitative insight that structure and metabolism were influential led to a followup investigation using graph-based deep learning to explore whether embeddings derived from structure and/or metabolism information could improve read-across predictions, using repeated dose toxicity as a case study, relative to structural similarity baselines.
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.