人工智能时代毒理学研究的偏倚风险评估。

IF 6.9 2区 医学 Q1 TOXICOLOGY
Thomas Hartung, Sebastian Hoffmann, Paul Whaley
{"title":"人工智能时代毒理学研究的偏倚风险评估。","authors":"Thomas Hartung,&nbsp;Sebastian Hoffmann,&nbsp;Paul Whaley","doi":"10.1007/s00204-025-03978-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Risk of bias is a critical factor influencing the reliability and validity of toxicological studies, impacting evidence synthesis and decision-making in regulatory and public health contexts. The traditional approaches for assessing risk of bias are often subjective and time-consuming. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) offer promising solutions for automating and enhancing bias detection and evaluation. This article reviews key types of biases—such as selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases—in in vivo, in vitro, and in silico studies. It further discusses specialized tools, including the SYRCLE and OHAT frameworks, designed to address such biases. The integration of AI-based tools into risk of bias assessments can significantly improve the efficiency, consistency, and accuracy of evaluations. However, AI models are themselves susceptible to algorithmic and data biases, necessitating robust validation and transparency in their development. The article highlights the need for standardized, AI-enabled risk of bias assessment methodologies, training, and policy implementation to mitigate biases in AI-driven analyses. The strategies for leveraging AI to screen studies, detect anomalies, and support systematic reviews are explored. By adopting these advanced methodologies, toxicologists and regulators can enhance the quality and reliability of toxicological evidence, promoting evidence-based practices and ensuring more informed decision-making. The way forward includes fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, developing bias-resilient AI models, and creating a research culture that actively addresses bias through transparent and rigorous practices.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8329,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Toxicology","volume":"99 8","pages":"3065 - 3090"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00204-025-03978-5.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing risk of bias in toxicological studies in the era of artificial intelligence\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Hartung,&nbsp;Sebastian Hoffmann,&nbsp;Paul Whaley\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s00204-025-03978-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>Risk of bias is a critical factor influencing the reliability and validity of toxicological studies, impacting evidence synthesis and decision-making in regulatory and public health contexts. The traditional approaches for assessing risk of bias are often subjective and time-consuming. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) offer promising solutions for automating and enhancing bias detection and evaluation. This article reviews key types of biases—such as selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases—in in vivo, in vitro, and in silico studies. It further discusses specialized tools, including the SYRCLE and OHAT frameworks, designed to address such biases. The integration of AI-based tools into risk of bias assessments can significantly improve the efficiency, consistency, and accuracy of evaluations. However, AI models are themselves susceptible to algorithmic and data biases, necessitating robust validation and transparency in their development. The article highlights the need for standardized, AI-enabled risk of bias assessment methodologies, training, and policy implementation to mitigate biases in AI-driven analyses. The strategies for leveraging AI to screen studies, detect anomalies, and support systematic reviews are explored. By adopting these advanced methodologies, toxicologists and regulators can enhance the quality and reliability of toxicological evidence, promoting evidence-based practices and ensuring more informed decision-making. The way forward includes fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, developing bias-resilient AI models, and creating a research culture that actively addresses bias through transparent and rigorous practices.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8329,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Toxicology\",\"volume\":\"99 8\",\"pages\":\"3065 - 3090\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00204-025-03978-5.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-025-03978-5\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00204-025-03978-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"TOXICOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

偏倚风险是影响毒理学研究可靠性和有效性的关键因素,影响监管和公共卫生背景下的证据合成和决策。评估偏倚风险的传统方法往往是主观的,耗时的。人工智能(AI)的最新进展为自动化和增强偏见检测和评估提供了有前途的解决方案。本文回顾了在体内、体外和硅片研究中的关键类型的偏倚,如选择、性能、检测、损耗和报告偏倚。它进一步讨论了专门的工具,包括sycle和OHAT框架,旨在解决这种偏见。将基于人工智能的工具整合到偏见风险评估中,可以显著提高评估的效率、一致性和准确性。然而,人工智能模型本身容易受到算法和数据偏差的影响,因此需要在其开发过程中进行强大的验证和透明度。本文强调需要标准化的、人工智能支持的偏见风险评估方法、培训和政策实施,以减轻人工智能驱动分析中的偏见。探讨了利用人工智能筛选研究、检测异常和支持系统审查的策略。通过采用这些先进的方法,毒理学家和监管机构可以提高毒理学证据的质量和可靠性,促进循证实践并确保更明智的决策。未来的道路包括促进跨学科合作,开发抗偏见的人工智能模型,以及创建一种通过透明和严格的实践积极解决偏见的研究文化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessing risk of bias in toxicological studies in the era of artificial intelligence

Risk of bias is a critical factor influencing the reliability and validity of toxicological studies, impacting evidence synthesis and decision-making in regulatory and public health contexts. The traditional approaches for assessing risk of bias are often subjective and time-consuming. Recent advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) offer promising solutions for automating and enhancing bias detection and evaluation. This article reviews key types of biases—such as selection, performance, detection, attrition, and reporting biases—in in vivo, in vitro, and in silico studies. It further discusses specialized tools, including the SYRCLE and OHAT frameworks, designed to address such biases. The integration of AI-based tools into risk of bias assessments can significantly improve the efficiency, consistency, and accuracy of evaluations. However, AI models are themselves susceptible to algorithmic and data biases, necessitating robust validation and transparency in their development. The article highlights the need for standardized, AI-enabled risk of bias assessment methodologies, training, and policy implementation to mitigate biases in AI-driven analyses. The strategies for leveraging AI to screen studies, detect anomalies, and support systematic reviews are explored. By adopting these advanced methodologies, toxicologists and regulators can enhance the quality and reliability of toxicological evidence, promoting evidence-based practices and ensuring more informed decision-making. The way forward includes fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, developing bias-resilient AI models, and creating a research culture that actively addresses bias through transparent and rigorous practices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Toxicology
Archives of Toxicology 医学-毒理学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
4.90%
发文量
218
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: Archives of Toxicology provides up-to-date information on the latest advances in toxicology. The journal places particular emphasis on studies relating to defined effects of chemicals and mechanisms of toxicity, including toxic activities at the molecular level, in humans and experimental animals. Coverage includes new insights into analysis and toxicokinetics and into forensic toxicology. Review articles of general interest to toxicologists are an additional important feature of the journal.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信