ArticleArchives of toxicology2026
Transforming animal study toxicology reports into structured, harmonized data using large language models.
Article in Archives of toxicology, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preclinical toxicology study reports contain the expert interpretations required to distinguish test article-related effects from incidental findings, yet these conclusions often remain embedded in unstructured text form that limit systematic reuse and integration with computational safety approaches. To address this gap, we developed a Large Language Model (LLM) - supported pipeline that converts toxicology reports into structured, machine-readable datasets harmonized with SEND terminology. The pipeline combines automated document preprocessing, section identification, schema-constrained information extraction, and semantic harmonization, complemented by targeted human curation. We evaluated the system performance using 200 Roche toxicology study reports, encompassing clinical pathology, histopathology, organ weights, exposure data, and study-level conclusions. Across domains, extraction performance was strong, characterized by consistently high sensitivity and precision for most parameters. Histopathology, organ weight, and NOAEL-related endpoints demonstrated the greatest robustness, with sensitivity typically above 95% and precision frequently exceeding 97%. Lower performance for parameters such as route of administration and substance identifiers reflected heterogeneous reporting practices rather than LLM-based method limitations. The structured datasets generated by this pipeline enable cross-study querying, identification of compounds with defined toxicological liabilities, integration with raw SEND data, and development of high-quality labels for predictive toxicology models. Practical utility has been demonstrated through representative use cases. These results demonstrate that LLM-assisted extraction can reliably capture expert toxicological interpretations at scale and provide a foundation for data-centric safety assessment, strategic decisions, reverse and forward translational toxicology research.
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.