New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) that employ artificial intelligence (AI) for predicting adverse effects of chemicals have generated optimistic expectations as alternatives to animal testing. However, the major underappreciated challenge in developing robust and predictive AI models is the impact of the quality of the input data on the model accuracy. Indeed, poor data reproducibility and quality have been frequently cited as factors contributing to the crisis in biomedical research, as well as similar shortcomings in the fields of toxicology and chemistry. In this article, we review the most recent efforts to improve confidence in the robustness of toxicological data and investigate the impact that data curation has on the confidence in model predictions. We also present two case studies demonstrating the effect of data curation on the performance of AI models for predicting skin sensitisation and skin irritation. We show that, whereas models generated with uncurated data had a 7–24% higher correct classification rate (CCR), the perceived performance was, in fact, inflated owing to the high number of duplicates in the training set. We assert that data curation is a critical step in building computational models, to help ensure that reliable predictions of chemical toxicity are achieved through use of the models.
Novel computational models offer alternatives to animal testing for assessing eye irritation and corrosion potential of chemicals
