构建一个专家驱动的跨读案例汇编,以方便分析不同相似上下文对跨读性能的贡献

IF 3.1 Q2 TOXICOLOGY
Grace Patlewicz , Nathaniel Charest , Amanda Ross , HC Bledsoe , Janielle Vidal , Sadegh Faramarzi , Brett Hagan , Imran Shah
{"title":"构建一个专家驱动的跨读案例汇编,以方便分析不同相似上下文对跨读性能的贡献","authors":"Grace Patlewicz ,&nbsp;Nathaniel Charest ,&nbsp;Amanda Ross ,&nbsp;HC Bledsoe ,&nbsp;Janielle Vidal ,&nbsp;Sadegh Faramarzi ,&nbsp;Brett Hagan ,&nbsp;Imran Shah","doi":"10.1016/j.comtox.2025.100366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Read-across is a data-gap filling technique used to predict the toxicity of a target chemical based on data from similar analogues. It is predominantly performed through expert-driven assessments which can limit reproducibility and broader acceptance. Data-driven approaches such as Generalised Read-Across (GenRA) offer the potential to generate more reproducible read-across predictions with quantified uncertainties and performance metrics. A key challenge is reconciling expert- and data-driven approaches particularly in how analogues are identified, evaluated and used to derive predictions. A critical aspect of analogue selection lies in understanding the relative contribution of different similarity contexts e.g. whether structural similarity plays a larger role than metabolism similarity. This study explored these considerations by compiling a compendium of expert-driven read-across assessments for repeated dose toxicity endpoints from peer reviewed and grey literature. Pairwise similarity was quantified across structural, physicochemical, metabolic and reactivity features within each case and a prediction model was developed to evaluate the contribution of each similarity context in analogue selection. Although the dataset comprised 157 read-across cases and 695 unique substances, it was limited in size, heterogeneous in origin and variable in analogue selection criteria and use contexts. These factors constrain generalisability of the findings and indicate that conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, the qualitative insight that structure and metabolism were influential led to a followup investigation using graph-based deep learning to explore whether embeddings derived from structure and/or metabolism information could improve read-across predictions, using repeated dose toxicity as a case study, relative to structural similarity baselines.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37651,"journal":{"name":"Computational Toxicology","volume":"35 ","pages":"Article 100366"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Building a compendium of expert driven read-across cases to facilitate an analysis of the contribution that different similarity contexts play in read-across performance\",\"authors\":\"Grace Patlewicz ,&nbsp;Nathaniel Charest ,&nbsp;Amanda Ross ,&nbsp;HC Bledsoe ,&nbsp;Janielle Vidal ,&nbsp;Sadegh Faramarzi ,&nbsp;Brett Hagan ,&nbsp;Imran Shah\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.comtox.2025.100366\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>Read-across is a data-gap filling technique used to predict the toxicity of a target chemical based on data from similar analogues. It is predominantly performed through expert-driven assessments which can limit reproducibility and broader acceptance. Data-driven approaches such as Generalised Read-Across (GenRA) offer the potential to generate more reproducible read-across predictions with quantified uncertainties and performance metrics. A key challenge is reconciling expert- and data-driven approaches particularly in how analogues are identified, evaluated and used to derive predictions. A critical aspect of analogue selection lies in understanding the relative contribution of different similarity contexts e.g. whether structural similarity plays a larger role than metabolism similarity. This study explored these considerations by compiling a compendium of expert-driven read-across assessments for repeated dose toxicity endpoints from peer reviewed and grey literature. Pairwise similarity was quantified across structural, physicochemical, metabolic and reactivity features within each case and a prediction model was developed to evaluate the contribution of each similarity context in analogue selection. Although the dataset comprised 157 read-across cases and 695 unique substances, it was limited in size, heterogeneous in origin and variable in analogue selection criteria and use contexts. These factors constrain generalisability of the findings and indicate that conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, the qualitative insight that structure and metabolism were influential led to a followup investigation using graph-based deep learning to explore whether embeddings derived from structure and/or metabolism information could improve read-across predictions, using repeated dose toxicity as a case study, relative to structural similarity baselines.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Computational Toxicology\",\"volume\":\"35 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100366\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Computational Toxicology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246811132500026X\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"TOXICOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Computational Toxicology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S246811132500026X","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: 0

摘要

跨读是一种数据缺口填充技术,用于根据类似类似物的数据预测目标化学品的毒性。它主要是通过专家驱动的评估来进行的,这可能会限制可重复性和更广泛的接受度。数据驱动的方法,如Generalised Read-Across (GenRA),提供了通过量化的不确定性和性能指标生成更多可重复的Read-Across预测的潜力。一个关键的挑战是协调专家和数据驱动的方法,特别是在如何识别、评估和使用类似物来推导预测方面。类似物选择的一个关键方面在于理解不同相似背景的相对贡献,例如结构相似是否比代谢相似发挥更大的作用。本研究通过编制专家驱动的对同行评审和灰色文献中重复剂量毒性终点的跨读评估纲要,探讨了这些考虑。在每种情况下,通过结构、物理化学、代谢和反应性特征对两两相似性进行量化,并开发了一个预测模型来评估每种相似性背景对类似物选择的贡献。尽管该数据集包含157个跨读案例和695种独特物质,但它的大小有限,来源不同,并且在模拟物选择标准和使用环境中可变。这些因素限制了研究结果的普遍性,并表明结论应谨慎解释。尽管如此,结构和代谢具有影响的定性见解导致使用基于图的深度学习进行后续调查,以重复剂量毒性作为案例研究,相对于结构相似性基线,探索来自结构和/或代谢信息的嵌入是否可以改善跨读预测。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Building a compendium of expert driven read-across cases to facilitate an analysis of the contribution that different similarity contexts play in read-across performance
Read-across is a data-gap filling technique used to predict the toxicity of a target chemical based on data from similar analogues. It is predominantly performed through expert-driven assessments which can limit reproducibility and broader acceptance. Data-driven approaches such as Generalised Read-Across (GenRA) offer the potential to generate more reproducible read-across predictions with quantified uncertainties and performance metrics. A key challenge is reconciling expert- and data-driven approaches particularly in how analogues are identified, evaluated and used to derive predictions. A critical aspect of analogue selection lies in understanding the relative contribution of different similarity contexts e.g. whether structural similarity plays a larger role than metabolism similarity. This study explored these considerations by compiling a compendium of expert-driven read-across assessments for repeated dose toxicity endpoints from peer reviewed and grey literature. Pairwise similarity was quantified across structural, physicochemical, metabolic and reactivity features within each case and a prediction model was developed to evaluate the contribution of each similarity context in analogue selection. Although the dataset comprised 157 read-across cases and 695 unique substances, it was limited in size, heterogeneous in origin and variable in analogue selection criteria and use contexts. These factors constrain generalisability of the findings and indicate that conclusions should be interpreted with caution. Nonetheless, the qualitative insight that structure and metabolism were influential led to a followup investigation using graph-based deep learning to explore whether embeddings derived from structure and/or metabolism information could improve read-across predictions, using repeated dose toxicity as a case study, relative to structural similarity baselines.
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
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信