Machine learning predicts PFAS acute oral toxicity in rats, indicating structural traits linked to toxicity.
The ubiquity and environmental persistence of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) have raised significant concerns about their detrimental effects on human health. Collective scientific efforts are increasingly focused on elucidating PFAS toxicity mechanisms and identifying potential low-impact PFAS structures that retain the exceptional properties of this chemical class. To advance the use of in silico methods in PFAS toxicity assessment, we developed a robust modelling framework for predicting PFAS acute oral toxicity class (high or low) in rats, leveraging the enhanced capabilities of the in-house Isalos Analytics Platform. The automated machine learning (autoML) functionality was employed to optimise four ML models—k-nearest neighbours (kNN), Random Forest (RF), eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), and fully connected neural network (NN)—using Mold2 molecular descriptors, and to identify the top-performing model through five-fold cross-validation. The selected kNN model (k = 3) was used for predictions on the held-out testing set, achieving an accuracy of 81.5%, while a Shapley values analysis provided valuable insights into the factors influencing toxicity predictions. Furthermore, the nearest-neighbour-based methodology enabled a read-across structural analysis of PFAS similarity groups consisting of each testing set instance and its three closest neighbours in the training set. This analysis revealed a consistent association between polyaromatic and heterocyclic structural features and high acute oral toxicity. The developed, thoroughly validated read-across model is freely accessible through the INSIGHT RatTox web application as well as the INSIGHT Cheminformatics Platform in Enalos Cloud, supporting high-throughput screening of PFAS compounds and investigation of structural similarities with their nearest neighbours for enriched structural interpretation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Theodori et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: