4.6 Article

QSAR Models for Human Carcinogenicity: An Assessment Based on Oral and Inhalation Slope Factors

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 26, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26010127

关键词

cancer slope factor; in silico method; QSAR; prioritization

资金

  1. JANUS project (GermanUBA) [Z6 80710/20, 3716654140]
  2. LIFE-VERMEER project [LIFE 16ENV/IT7000167]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study developed classification and regression models for inhalation and oral slope factors, which showed good accuracy and R^2 values. These models may assist regulatory authorities in decision-making and weighing evidence in chemical safety assessments.
Carcinogenicity is a crucial endpoint for the safety assessment of chemicals and products. During the last few decades, the development of quantitative structure-activity relationship ((Q)SAR) models has gained importance for regulatory use, in combination with in vitro testing or expert-based reasoning. Several classification models can now predict both human and rat carcinogenicity, but there are few models to quantitatively assess carcinogenicity in humans. To our knowledge, slope factor (SF), a parameter describing carcinogenicity potential used especially for human risk assessment of contaminated sites, has never been modeled for both inhalation and oral exposures. In this study, we developed classification and regression models for inhalation and oral SFs using data from the Risk Assessment Information System (RAIS) and different machine learning approaches. The models performed well in classification, with accuracies for the external set of 0.76 and 0.74 for oral and inhalation exposure, respectively, and r(2) values of 0.57 and 0.65 in the regression models for oral and inhalation SFs in external validation. These models might therefore support regulators in (de)prioritizing substances for regulatory action and in weighing evidence in the context of chemical safety assessments. Moreover, these models are implemented on the VEGA platform and are now freely downloadable online.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据