ReviewArchives of toxicology2026
Causality analysis of toxicological mechanisms in networked systems such as adverse outcome pathway networks.
Review in Archives of toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evidence-based AI: from trailblazer to trustblazer?Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- All things are active … new approach methods for excipient safety.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper examines why robust causality assessment is central to toxicology yet increasingly difficult in networked biological systems, including Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) networks and multi-omics datasets. Classical causal frameworks (e.g., Koch/Dale reasoning and Bradford Hill-type considerations) remain useful for scoping, but they offer limited operational guidance for multifactorial, nonlinear, and feedback-dominated mechanisms. We therefore synthesize a modern toolbox for causality analysis in toxicology spanning directed acyclic graphs for explicit causal assumptions, quantitative and probabilistic approaches for integrating evidence across key events, and network/dynamical methods that help identify influential hubs and points of vulnerability in AOP networks. Building on evidence-based toxicology, we propose an operational workflow that links (i) structured scoping and model specification, (ii) protocolized evidence retrieval across in vivo, in vitro, in silico and human data streams, (iii) risk-of-bias appraisal and quantitative synthesis of effect sizes and dose-response, (iv) mechanistic integration and targeted perturbation assays, and (v) translation via dual-strand certainty rating (mechanistic vs difference-making evidence) and Evidence-to-Decision tables. We discuss how explainable AI can support scalable integration and transparency. A worked developmental neurotoxicity example illustrates how this pipeline can support regulatory recommendations while explicitly documenting uncertainty.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42365111What 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.