Cited by 227Computational Drug Discovery MethodsAnimal testing and alternativesMachine Learning in Materials Science

Advancing Computational Toxicology in the Big Data Era by Artificial Intelligence: Data-Driven and Mechanism-Driven Modeling for Chemical Toxicity

Open access
Ciallella, Heather L., Zhu, Hao·2019·Chemical Research in Toxicology

Abstract

In 2016, the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act became the first US legislation to advance chemical safety evaluations by utilizing novel testing approaches that reduce the testing of vertebrate animals. Central to this mission is the advancement of computational toxicology and artificial intelligence approaches to implementing innovative testing methods. In the current big data era, the terms volume (amount of data), velocity (growth of data), and variety (the diversity of sources) have been used to characterize the currently available chemical, in vitro, and in vivo data for toxicity modeling purposes. Furthermore, as suggested by various scientists, the variability (internal consistency or lack thereof) of publicly available data pools, such as PubChem, also presents significant computational challenges. The development of novel artificial intelligence approaches based on public massive toxicity data is urgently needed to generate new predictive models for chemical toxicity evaluations and make the developed models applicable as alternatives for evaluating untested compounds. In this procedure, traditional approaches (e.g., QSAR) purely based on chemical structures have been replaced by newly designed data-driven and mechanism-driven modeling. The resulting models realize the concept of adverse outcome pathway (AOP), which can not only directly evaluate toxicity potentials of new compounds, but also illustrate relevant toxicity mechanisms. The recent advancement of computational toxicology in the big data era has paved the road to future toxicity testing, which will significantly impact on the public health.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.8b00393

Cites

135 of 135 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • For 15 absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) data sets of drug candidates, DL models outperformed classic ML approaches in terms of predictability.

    “For 15 absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) data sets of drug candidates, DL models outperformed classic ML approaches in terms of predictability”

    From Blockchain and Artificial Intelligence Technology in E-Health (2021) · cites this paper as Ciallella and Zhu 2019

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [68]Lehn J-M (1999) Dynamic Combinatorial Chemistry and Virtual Combinatorial Libraries. Chem. - Eur. J 5 (9), 2455– 2463.
  2. [76]About PubChem; PubChem, 2018 https://pubchemdocs.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/about (accessed Oct 11, 2018).
  3. [106]Yoon M, Campbell JL, Andersen ME, and Clewell HJ (2012) Quantitative in Vitro to in Vivo Extrapolation of Cell-Based Toxicity Assay Results. Crit. Rev. Toxicol 42 (8), 633– 652. 22667820
  4. [118]Vinken M, Landesmann B, Goumenou M, Vinken S, Shah I, Jaeschke H, Willett C, Whelan M, and Rogiers V (2013) C from Drug-Mediated Bile Salt Export Pump Inhibition to Cholestatic Liver Injury. Toxicol. Sci 136 (1), 97– 106. 23945500
  5. [130]Kim MT, Huang R, Sedykh A, Wang W, Xia M, and Zhu H (2016) C. Environ. Health Perspect 124 (5), 634– 641. PMC4858396 26383846
  6. [137]Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies to Predictive Toxicology and Risk Assessment; National Research Council (US) Committee on Applications of Toxicogenomic Technologies to Predictive Toxicology, National Academies Press: Washington, D.C., 2007. 20669432

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ciallella, H. L., & Zhu, H.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Zhu, Hao
Venue
Chemical Research in Toxicology
Published
2019-03-14
Volume
32
Issue
4
Pages
536-547
ISSN
  • 0893-228X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5010
OpenAlex
W2922283117
Cited by
227
References
135
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 5
FWCI
1.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Chemical Research in Toxicology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Colgate-Palmolive Company
  • Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (R15ES023148)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
Keywords
computational toxicology, artificial intelligence, chemical toxicity prediction, adverse outcome pathways, data-driven modeling, big data, alternatives to animal testing
MeSH terms
Animals, Artificial Intelligence, Humans, Toxicity Tests, Computational Biology

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