ArticleScientific reports2026
Domain-generalized representation learning for cross-chemical-family toxicity prediction.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional QSAR toxicity models are, in general, assessed with random train-test splits where structural overlaps between train and test compounds are allowed. This usually results in an inflated predictive performance. Therefore, this paper looks at the problem of toxicity prediction under the structural distribution shift and checks if representation-level invariance can contribute to better cross-family generalization. A set of 1792 structurally diverse organic molecules for which toxicity data (e.g., Tetrahymena pyriformis pIGC₅₀) were determined experimentally was modeled with physicochemical descriptors. In order to depict the realistic scenarios of model use, the leave-one-cluster-out (LOCO) protocol was applied to enforce strict structural separation of training and test domains. Baseline neural models lost a lot of their prediction accuracy under LOCO versus random splits, thus exposing a very large generalization gap. On the other hand, invariant learning methods such as invariant risk minimization, contrastive alignment, and domain-adversarial training managed not only to reduce the cross-domain error but also to make residual distributions more stable. The embedding of latent space further demonstrated that invariance helps to get rid of cluster-specific signals while keeping toxicity-relevant gradients intact. From a practical perspective, these results suggest that robust in silico predictive toxicology, further under structural distribution shift, can be achieved through domain-aware validation and invariant representation learning.
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.