Assessment of uncertainty and credibility of predictions by the OECD QSAR Toolbox automated read-across workflow for predicting acute oral toxicity

IF 3.1 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Terry W. Schultz , Atanas Chapkanov , Stela Kutsarova , Ovanes G. Mekenyan
{"title":"Assessment of uncertainty and credibility of predictions by the OECD QSAR Toolbox automated read-across workflow for predicting acute oral toxicity","authors":"Terry W. Schultz ,&nbsp;Atanas Chapkanov ,&nbsp;Stela Kutsarova ,&nbsp;Ovanes G. Mekenyan","doi":"10.1016/j.comtox.2022.100219","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The platform of OECD Toolbox version 4.5 was used for building an automated decision tree for filling data gaps for rat acute oral toxicity (AOT) by read-across (RA). Our previous publications have described the workflow of the AOT tree and conducted verification and validation studies on it. The overall uncertainty in the AOT workflow is low as the similarity in mechanistic probability, metabolism and 2D structure are maximized in the RA analogue selection process. The endpoint, rat oral LD50, is well-defined and has universal regulatory acceptance. Since OECD test guidelines are followed in generating the database, the data are widely recognized to be of the highest quality. The credibility of the workflow is high as it meets the critical factors of being based on confirmed assumptions, having demonstrated concordance and consistency, permitting the ability to explain AOT-related mechanisms and modes of action, and being simple in design. Additionally, the Z-score and probability distribution methods of assessing the uncertainty of a particular RA are discussed. Two examples of numerical and classification uncertainty are presented. These cases represent the extremes observed in a series of target chemical-based predictions that the authors observed when testing the workflow. The reliability and relevance associated with the workflow are high. However, the completeness and weights-of-evidence varied markedly among possible RA scenarios and particular target substances.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":37651,"journal":{"name":"Computational Toxicology","volume":"22 ","pages":"Article 100219"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246811132200007X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The platform of OECD Toolbox version 4.5 was used for building an automated decision tree for filling data gaps for rat acute oral toxicity (AOT) by read-across (RA). Our previous publications have described the workflow of the AOT tree and conducted verification and validation studies on it. The overall uncertainty in the AOT workflow is low as the similarity in mechanistic probability, metabolism and 2D structure are maximized in the RA analogue selection process. The endpoint, rat oral LD50, is well-defined and has universal regulatory acceptance. Since OECD test guidelines are followed in generating the database, the data are widely recognized to be of the highest quality. The credibility of the workflow is high as it meets the critical factors of being based on confirmed assumptions, having demonstrated concordance and consistency, permitting the ability to explain AOT-related mechanisms and modes of action, and being simple in design. Additionally, the Z-score and probability distribution methods of assessing the uncertainty of a particular RA are discussed. Two examples of numerical and classification uncertainty are presented. These cases represent the extremes observed in a series of target chemical-based predictions that the authors observed when testing the workflow. The reliability and relevance associated with the workflow are high. However, the completeness and weights-of-evidence varied markedly among possible RA scenarios and particular target substances.

Abstract Image

经合组织QSAR工具箱预测急性口服毒性的不确定性和可信度评估
OECD工具箱4.5版平台用于构建一个自动化决策树,用于通过读取(RA)填补大鼠急性口服毒性(AOT)的数据空白。我们以前的出版物描述了AOT树的工作流程,并对其进行了验证和验证研究。由于在RA类似物选择过程中,机制概率、代谢和二维结构的相似性最大化,AOT工作流程中的整体不确定性较低。终点是大鼠口服LD50,定义明确,并得到普遍监管认可。由于在编制数据库时遵循经合发组织的测试准则,因此人们普遍认为这些数据具有最高质量。工作流的可信度很高,因为它满足以下关键因素:基于已确认的假设,已证明了一致性和一致性,允许解释aot相关机制和行为模式的能力,并且设计简单。此外,还讨论了评估特定RA不确定性的z分数和概率分布方法。给出了数值不确定性和分类不确定性的两个例子。这些案例代表了作者在测试工作流程时观察到的一系列基于目标化学物质的预测中观察到的极端情况。与工作流相关的可靠性和相关性很高。然而,证据的完整性和权重在可能的RA情景和特定目标物质之间存在显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Computational Toxicology
Computational Toxicology Computer Science-Computer Science Applications
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
53
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Computational Toxicology is an international journal publishing computational approaches that assist in the toxicological evaluation of new and existing chemical substances assisting in their safety assessment. -All effects relating to human health and environmental toxicity and fate -Prediction of toxicity, metabolism, fate and physico-chemical properties -The development of models from read-across, (Q)SARs, PBPK, QIVIVE, Multi-Scale Models -Big Data in toxicology: integration, management, analysis -Implementation of models through AOPs, IATA, TTC -Regulatory acceptance of models: evaluation, verification and validation -From metals, to small organic molecules to nanoparticles -Pharmaceuticals, pesticides, foods, cosmetics, fine chemicals -Bringing together the views of industry, regulators, academia, NGOs
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信