Recent advances in AI-based toxicity prediction for drug discovery
Open accessAbstract
Toxicity, defined as the potential harm a substance can cause to living organisms, requires the implementation of stringent regulatory standards to ensure public safety. These standards involve comprehensive testing frameworks, including hazard identification, dose-response evaluation, exposure assessment, and risk characterization. In drug discovery and development, these processes are often complex, time-consuming, and also resource-intensive. Toxicity-related failures in the later stages of drug development can lead to substantial financial losses, underscoring the need for reliable toxicity prediction during the early discovery phases. The advent of computational approaches has accelerated a shift toward in silico modeling, virtual screening, and, notably, artificial intelligence (AI) to identify potential toxicities earlier in the pipeline. Ongoing advances in databases, algorithms, and computational power have further expanded AI’s role in pharmaceutical research. Today, AI models are capable of predicting wide range of toxicity endpoints, such as hepatotoxicity, cardiotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, and genotoxicity, based on diverse molecular representations ranging from traditional descriptors to graph-based methods. This review provides an in-depth examination of AI-driven toxicity prediction, emphasizing its transformative impact on drug discovery and its growing importance in improving safety assessments.
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
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.
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?
Toxicology predictions including genome-based hazard forecasts and machine-learning models are being researched to anticipate adverse characteristics and reduce dependence on extensive in vivo testing, though their application to probiotics is preliminary.
“Toxicology predictions, including genome-based hazard forecasts and developing machine-learning models, are being researched to anticipate adverse characteristics and reduce dependence on extensive in vivo testing, despite their application to probiotics being at a preliminary stage [65,157].”
From Current Concepts in Probiotic Safety and Efficacy (2026) · cites this paper as [157]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 1 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 19 · Cited by 76
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Babai S. Auclert L. Le-Louet H. (2021). Safety data and withdrawal of hepatotoxic drugs. Therapie 76 (6), 715– 723. 10.1016/j.therap.2018.02.004 29609830 · DOI
- Liu Y. Ding S. Zhou S. Fan W. Tan Q. (2024). Moleculargpt: open large language model (llm) for few-shot molecular property prediction. arXiv:2406. 12950
- Lundberg S. M. Lee S. I. (2017). “ A unified approach to interpreting model predictions,” in NIPS'17: Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, Long Beach California USA, December 4 - 9, 2017, 4768– 4777.)
- NRC (1994). Science and judgment in risk assessment. National research Council (US) Committee on risk Assessment of hazardous air pollutants. Washington (DC): National Academies Press US. Available online at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK208246/. 25032408
- Pei Q. Z. Zhang W. Zhu J. H. Wu K. H. Gao K. Y. Wu L. J. (2023). “ BioT5: enriching cross-modal integration in biology with chemical knowledge and natural language associations,” in 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Emnlp 2023, Singapore, December 6–10, 2023, 1102– 1123.
- Wu Z. X. Wang J. K. Du H. Y. Jiang D. J. Kang Y. Li D. (2023). Chemistry-intuitive explanation of graph neural networks for molecular property prediction with substructure masking. Nat. Commun. 14 (1), 2585. 10.1038/s41467-023-38192-3 37142585 PMC10160109 · DOI
- Authors
- Lee, H., Kim, J., Kim, J.-W., & Lee, Y.
- Affiliations
- Chung-Ang University (KR)
- Kyung Hee University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Kim, Ji-Woon
- Lee, Yoonji
- ORCID
- Lee, Yoonji
- Venue
- Frontiers in Chemistry
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2025-07-08
- Volume
- 13
- Pages
- 1632046-1632046
- ISSN
- 2296-2646 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12279745
- OpenAlex
- W4412618471
- Cited by
- 76
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 67 · 2025: 9
- FWCI
- 4.67
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Chemistry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Chung-Ang University
- Ministry of Environment (2021003310005)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
- Keywords
- drug discovery, drug safety assessment, virtual screening, hepatotoxicity, cardiotoxicity, nephrotoxicity, neurotoxicity, genotoxicity, early drug development
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