ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2026
Systematic validation of graph neural network explanations against adverse outcome pathway reactive centers for skin sensitization.
Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
Whether graph neural network (GNN) attributions capture the reactive chemistry encoded in adverse outcome pathway (AOP) annotations for skin sensitization has not been tested under a label-permutation control. We trained AttentiveFP on a 436-molecule LLNA-labeled subset (81 sensitizers) of a curated skin-sensitization dataset and extracted atom-level attributions from seven methods (integrated gradients, GradCAM, attention, GNNExplainer, PGExplainer, GraphMask, and a rank-aggregated ensemble); GCN and GIN were retrained as architecture controls. Attributions were evaluated against 50 sensitization-specific SMARTS-based reactive-center annotations spanning six molecular initiating event (MIE) mechanism classes. The LLNA-trained model reached test AUC 0.73, compared with AUC 0.49 for a shuffled-label retraining control. Across all seven attribution methods, paired real-vs-shuffled atom-AUC differences crossed zero, indicating that most apparent attribution-mechanism correlation reflects structural priors of the attribution methods rather than learned sensitization chemistry. Mechanism-class stratification surfaced one candidate exception-pre-hapten autoxidation chemistry, with a
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.