Machine learning in toxicological sciences: opportunities for assessing drug toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) in toxicological sciences is growing exponentially, which presents unprecedented opportunities and brings up important considerations for using ML in this field. This review discusses supervised, unsupervised, and reinforcement learning and their applications to toxicology. The application of the scientific method is central to the development of a ML model. These steps involve defining the ML problem, constructing the dataset, transforming the data and feature selection, choosing and training a ML model, validation, and prediction. The need for rigorous models is becoming more of a requirement due to the vast number of chemicals and their interaction with biota. Large datasets make this task possible, though selecting databases with overlapping chemical spaces, amongst other things, is an important consideration. Predicting toxicity through machine learning can have significant societal impacts, including enhancements in assessing risks, determining clinical toxicities, evaluating carcinogenic properties, and detecting harmful side effects of medications. We provide a concise overview of the current state of this topic, focusing on the potential benefits and challenges related to the availability of extensive datasets, the methodologies for analyzing these datasets, and the ethical implications involved in applying such models.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".