ArticleComputational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2026
Development of machine learning-based multi-task quantitative structure-activity relationship models for predicting toxicities in six human organ systems.
Article in Computational toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 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.
- ADMET-XSpec: A Tool for Systematic Cross-Species Data Integration in ADMET Prediction.Chemical research in toxicology · 2026Article
- A Multitask Active Learning Framework with Probabilistic Modeling for Multi-Species Acute Toxicity Prediction.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Traditional toxicity assessment relies heavily on animal testing, particularly for chemicals lacking toxicity data. This study developed machine learning (ML)-driven quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models to predict human organ-specific toxicities, including cardiotoxicity, developmental toxicity, hepatotoxicity, neurotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, and reproductive toxicity. We collected in vivo data for 2,389 chemicals and Tox21 high-throughput screening data for 1,746 chemicals, resulting in 1,743 chemicals with matched datasets. Eighty-eight ML-based QSAR models were developed using three feature scenarios: (1) Tox21 data alone, (2) molecular descriptors alone, and (3) combined features. Five descriptor types and four ML algorithms (random forests, decision trees, support vector machines, and deep neural network [DNN]) were applied, with and without chi-square-based feature selection. Performance was evaluated using nested cross-validation and five metrics (recall, precision, balanced accuracy, F1 score, and ROC-AUC). DNN models in Scenario 2 performed best for developmental and neurotoxicity, while those in Scenario 3 outperformed others for the remaining toxicities. ROC-AUC values approached 0.8 across endpoints, and models without feature selection generally performed better. SHAP and contribution maps enhanced interpretability, highlighting key structural features of toxicity. This study demonstrates the potential of ML-assisted QSAR models for accurate multi-organ toxicity prediction, supporting drug development and chemical risk assessment.
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.