What if the number of nanotoxicity data is too small for developing predictive Nano-QSAR models? An alternative read-across based approach for filling data gaps
Abstract
Over the past decade, computational nanotoxicology, in particular Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship models (Nano-QSAR) that help in assessing the biological effects of nanomaterials, have received much attention. In effect, a solid basis for uncovering the relationships between the structure and property/activity of nanoparticles has been created. Nonetheless, six years after the first pioneering computational studies focusing on the investigation of nanotoxicity were commenced, these computational methods still suffer from many limitations. These are mainly related to the paucity of widely available, systematically varied, libraries of experimental data necessary for the development and validation of such models. This results in the still-low acceptance of these methods as valuable research tools for nanosafety and raises the query as to whether these methods could gain wide acceptance of regulatory bodies as alternatives for traditional in vitro methods. This study aimed to give an answer to the following question: How to remedy the paucity of experimental nanotoxicity data and thereby, overcome key roadblock that hinders the development of approaches for data-driven modeling of nanoparticle properties and toxicities? Here, a simple and transparent read-across algorithm for a pre-screening hazard assessment of nanomaterials that provides reasonably accurate results by making the best use of existing limited set of observations will be introduced.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 55 · Cited by 71
- Authors
- Gajewicz, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Gdańsk (PL)
- Corresponding author
- Gajewicz, Agnieszka
- ORCID
- Gajewicz, Agnieszka
- Venue
- Nanoscale
- Publisher
- Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC)
- Published
- 2017
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 24
- Pages
- 8435-8448
- ISSN
- 2040-3364 (ISSN-L)
- 2040-3372
- OpenAlex
- W2618838120
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 55
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 5.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Nanoscale (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Nanoparticles: synthesis and applications
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
- Keywords
- nanoparticle toxicity, nano-QSAR, read-across, data gaps, nanomaterials, structure-activity relationship, nanomaterial safety, regulatory acceptance, prescreening
- MeSH terms
- Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Nanoparticles, Ecotoxicology, Toxicokinetics
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