ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2026
A pragmatic workflow for integrating large language models into toxicological risk assessment.
Article in Frontiers in 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
23 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly in the form of large language models (LLMs), offers promising support for toxicological risk assessment (TRA), which integrates multiple lines of evidence to support health-based conclusions, including those used in regulatory decision-making. Effective use of LLMs in TRA requires a clear understanding of their strengths and limitations, especially in the context of regulatory expectations for transparency, reproducibility, and accountability. This work explores the emerging role of LLMs in TRA through three integrated components: an overview of LLMs in the context of TRA, an exemplar case study examining LLM-assisted derivation (mainly using ChatGPT) of the Permitted Daily Exposure (PDE) for acetyl tributyl citrate under the draft ICH Q3E guideline, and a workflow hypothesis for the integration of LLMs into TRA. Observations from the case study suggest that LLMs may support pattern recognition, targeted information retrieval, and rapid summarization of large bodies of text, facilitating literature triage, extraction of study details, and evidence summaries. At the same time, the case study highlights important limitations for LLMs. Observed variability in LLM outputs reflects inherent model stochastic behavior, model limitations, and the intrinsic complexity of TRA, where different experts may reasonably reach distinct, yet scientifically defensible conclusions based on the available evidence. The observations from the case study, interpreted in the context of the available literature, are used to inform a hypothesis that LLMs may be most effectively integrated into TRA through structured, modular, human-supervised workflows. This hypothesis reflects the view that the suitability of LLM-assisted TRA depends not only on LLM capabilities, but also on how LLMs are integrated into the assessment process to address both LLM variability and the interpretive nature of TRA. The proposed pragmatic workflow separates data search, information extraction, and integrated summarization while maintaining human-in-the-loop control over interpretation, expert judgment, and final conclusions.
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.