The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
In silico toxicology: computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity
Open accessAbstract
Determining the toxicity of chemicals is necessary to identify their harmful effects on humans, animals, plants, or the environment. It is also one of the main steps in drug design. Animal models have been used for a long time for toxicity testing. However, in vivo animal tests are constrained by time, ethical considerations, and financial burden. Therefore, computational methods for estimating the toxicity of chemicals are considered useful. In silico toxicology is one type of toxicity assessment that uses computational methods to analyze, simulate, visualize, or predict the toxicity of chemicals. In silico toxicology aims to complement existing toxicity tests to predict toxicity, prioritize chemicals, guide toxicity tests, and minimize late‐stage failures in drugs design. There are various methods for generating models to predict toxicity endpoints. We provide a comprehensive overview, explain, and compare the strengths and weaknesses of the existing modeling methods and algorithms for toxicity prediction with a particular (but not exclusive) emphasis on computational tools that can implement these methods and refer to expert systems that deploy the prediction models. Finally, we briefly review a number of new research directions in in silico toxicology and provide recommendations for designing in silico models. WIREs Comput Mol Sci 2016, 6:147–172. doi: 10.1002/wcms.1240 This article is categorized under: Computer and Information Science > Chemoinformatics Computer and Information Science > Databases and Expert Systems Computer and Information Science > Computer Algorithms and Programming
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
HANSCH, C., MALONEY, P. P., FUJITA, T., & MUIR, R. M. (1962) · Nature · doi:10.1038/194178b0 · Cited by 1,056
Cited by
Artificial Intelligence for Drug Toxicity and Safety
Basile, A. O., Yahi, A., & Tatonetti, N. P. (2019) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2019.07.005 · Cited by 363
Mao, B.-H., Chen, Z.-Y., Wang, Y.-J., & Yan, S.-J. (2018) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-018-20728-z · Cited by 319
Opo, F. A. D. M., Rahman, M. M., Ahammad, F., Ahmed, I., Bhuiyan, M. A., & Asiri, A. M. (2021) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-021-83626-x · Cited by 298
In silico toxicology protocols
Myatt, G. J., Ahlberg, E., Akahori, Y., Allen, D., Amberg, A., Anger, L. T., Aptula, A., Auerbach, S., Beilke, L., Bellion, P., et al. (2018) · Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.yrtph.2018.04.014 · Cited by 240
Domingues, C., Santos, A., Alvarez-Lorenzo, C., Concheiro, A., Jarak, I., Veiga, F., Barbosa, I., Dourado, M., & Figueiras, A. (2022) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/acsnano.2c00128 · Cited by 235
Metadata
- Authors
- Raies, A. B., & Bajic, V. B.
- Venue
- WIREs Computational Molecular Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-01-06
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 147-172
- ISSN
- 1759-0876 (ISSN-L)
- 1759-0884
- OpenAlex
- W2225235469
- Cited by
- 744
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 46.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: In silico toxicology: computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/wcms.1240
- The paper
- Raies, A. B., & Bajic, V. B. (2016). In silico toxicology: computational methods for the prediction of chemical toxicity. WIREs Computational Molecular Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.1240
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.