4.7 Article

AOP-helpFinder webserver: a tool for comprehensive analysis of the literature to support adverse outcome pathways development

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 38, 期 4, 页码 1173-1175

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab750

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Union [825712, HBM4EU, 733032]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, an artificial intelligence-based tool called AOP-helpFinder and its corresponding webserver were developed to facilitate the rapid evaluation of toxicological data in scientific literature, supporting the construction of AOPs and Adverse Outcome Networks for chemical risk assessment.
Motivation: Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are a conceptual framework developed to support the use of alternative toxicology approaches in the risk assessment. AOPs are structured linear organizations of existing knowledge illustrating causal pathways from the initial molecular perturbation triggered by various stressors, through key events (KEs) at different levels of biology, to the ultimate health or ecotoxicological adverse outcome. Results: Artificial intelligence can be used to systematically explore available toxicological data that can be parsed in the scientific literature. Recently, a tool called AOP-helpFinder was developed to identify associations between stressors and KEs supporting thus documentation of AOPs. To facilitate the utilization of this advanced bioinformatics tool by the scientific and the regulatory community, a webserver was created. The proposed AOP-helpFinder webserver uses better performing version of the tool which reduces the need for manual curation of the obtained results. As an example, the server was successfully applied to explore relationships of a set of endocrine disruptors with metabolic-related events. The AOP-helpFinder webserver assists in a rapid evaluation of existing knowledge stored in the PubMed database, a global resource of scientific information, to build AOPs and Adverse Outcome Networks supporting the chemical risk assessment.

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

4.7
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