It has been said that “too much confidence cannot be placed on the lessons of history.” We suggest that this declaration is particularly salient for the dynamic field of toxicology. The intersection of historical trends and technological developments within and outside the discipline is briefly considered as they have shaped what we study and what we do. Most importantly, perhaps, both individually and collectively, these elements also highlight cautions and define challenges that toxicology must embrace to continue to thrive and contribute to the scientific enterprise and public health.
KeynesJM. In: ‘A Treatise on Probability’. London, UK: Macmillan; 1921.
2.
LinZChouWC. Machine learning and artificial intelligence in toxicological sciences. Toxicol Sci. 2022;189(1):7-19. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfac075
3.
HaßmannUAmannSBabayanN, et al.Predictive, integrative, and regulatory aspects of AI-driven computational toxicology - highlights of the German Pharm-Tox Summit (GPTS) 2024. Toxicology. 2024;509:153975. doi:10.1016/j.tox.2024.153975
4.
WexlerP, ed. Encyclopedia of Toxicology. 4th ed.New York, NY, USA: Academic Press; 2023.
5.
HayesAWKobetsT, eds. Hayes’ Principles and Methods of Toxicology. 7th ed.FL, USA: CRC Press; 2023.
6.
VilleneuveDLCrumpDGarcia-ReyeroN, et al.Adverse outcome pathway (AOP) development I: strategies and principles. Toxicol Sci. 2014;142(2):312-320. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfu199
7.
VilleneuveDLCrumpDGarcia-ReyeroN, et al.Adverse outcome pathway development II: best practices. Toxicol Sci. 2014;142(2):321-330. doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfu200
8.
McGenityCClarkeELJenningsC, et al.Artificial intelligence in digital pathology: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. NPJ Digit Med. 2024;7(1):114. doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01106-8
9.
StefanSMRafehiM. The big data challenge – and how polypharmacology supports translation from pre-clinical research into clinical use against neurodegenerative diseases and beyond. Neural Regen Res. 2024;19(8):1647-1678. doi:10.4103/1673-5374.387984
10.
MengX-L. Reproducibility, replicability, and reliability. Harv Data Sci Rev. 2020;2(4). doi:10.1162/99608f92.dbfce7f9
11.
ShafiSParwaniAV. Artificial intelligence in diagnostic pathology. Diagn Pathol. 2023;18(1):109. doi:10.1186/s13000-023-01375-z
12.
GeaneyAO’ReillyPMaxwellPJamesJAMcArtDSalto-TellezM. Translation of tissue-based artificial intelligence into clinical practice: from discovery to adoption. Oncogene. 2023;42(48):3545-3555. doi:10.1038/s41388-023-02857-6
13.
KimIKangKSongYKimT-J. Application of artificial intelligence in pathology: trends and challenges. Diagnostics. 2022;12:2794. doi:10.3390/diagnostics12112794
14.
LancellottiCCancianPSavevskiV, et al.Artificial intelligence & tissue biomarkers: advantages, risks and perspectives for pathology. Cells. 2021;10(4):787. doi:10.3390/cells10040787
15.
Anon. Science in the Age of AI: How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing the Nature and Method of Scientific Research. London, UK: Royal Society; 2024.
16.
DayanAD. The position and problems of toxicology. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2015;34:1197-1199. doi:10.1177/0960327115598409
17.
KroesRKozianowskiG. Threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) in food safety assessment. Toxicol Lett. 2002;127(1-3):43-46. doi:10.1016/s0378-4274(01)00481-7
18.
ParsonsC. Insuring the unknown. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2015;34:1238-1244. doi:10.1177/0960327115601765
19.
SlovicP. Perception of risk. Science. 1987;236(4799):280-285. doi:10.1126/science.3563507
20.
RopeikD. On the roots of, and solutions to, the persistent battle between “chemonoia” and rationalist denialism of the subjective nature of human cognition. Hum Exp Toxicol. 2015;34:1272-1278. doi:10.1177/0960327115603
21.
SalehRBearthASiegristM. “Chemophobia” today: consumers’ knowledge and perceptions of chemicals. Risk Anal. 2019;39(1-2):2668-2682. doi:10.1111/risa.13375
22.
KleinstreuerNHartungT. Artificial intelligence (AI)-it's the end of the tox as we know it (and I feel fine). ArchToxicol. 2024;98:735-754. doi:10.1007/s00204-023-03666-2
