Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 327

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Machine Learning of Toxicological Big Data Enables Read-Across Structure Activity Relationships (RASAR) Outperforming Animal Test Reproducibility

Open access
Luechtefeld, Thomas, Marsh, Dan, Rowlands, Craig, Hartung, Thomas·2018·Toxicological Sciences

Abstract

Earlier we created a chemical hazard database via natural language processing of dossiers submitted to the European Chemical Agency with approximately 10 000 chemicals. We identified repeat OECD guideline tests to establish reproducibility of acute oral and dermal toxicity, eye and skin irritation, mutagenicity and skin sensitization. Based on 350-700+ chemicals each, the probability that an OECD guideline animal test would output the same result in a repeat test was 78%-96% (sensitivity 50%-87%). An expanded database with more than 866 000 chemical properties/hazards was used as training data and to model health hazards and chemical properties. The constructed models automate and extend the read-across method of chemical classification. The novel models called RASARs (read-across structure activity relationship) use binary fingerprints and Jaccard distance to define chemical similarity. A large chemical similarity adjacency matrix is constructed from this similarity metric and is used to derive feature vectors for supervised learning. We show results on 9 health hazards from 2 kinds of RASARs-"Simple" and "Data Fusion". The "Simple" RASAR seeks to duplicate the traditional read-across method, predicting hazard from chemical analogs with known hazard data. The "Data Fusion" RASAR extends this concept by creating large feature vectors from all available property data rather than only the modeled hazard. Simple RASAR models tested in cross-validation achieve 70%-80% balanced accuracies with constraints on tested compounds. Cross validation of data fusion RASARs show balanced accuracies in the 80%-95% range across 9 health hazards with no constraints on tested compounds.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/toxsci/kfy152

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Cited by

See all 327

Metadata

Authors
Luechtefeld, T., Marsh, D., Rowlands, C., & Hartung, T.
Venue
Toxicological Sciences
Published
2018-07-11
Volume
165
Issue
1
Pages
198-212
ISSN
  • 1096-0929 (ISSN-L)
  • 1096-6080
OpenAlex
W2822962393
Cited by
327
References
1
FWCI
22.19
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: Machine Learning of Toxicological Big Data Enables Read-Across Structure Activity Relationships (RASAR) Outperforming Animal Test Reproducibility. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/toxsci/kfy152
The paper
Luechtefeld, T., Marsh, D., Rowlands, C., & Hartung, T. (2018). Machine Learning of Toxicological Big Data Enables Read-Across Structure Activity Relationships (RASAR) Outperforming Animal Test Reproducibility. Toxicological Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfy152

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.