Integrative Biomedical Research
Integrative Biomedical Research (Journal of Angiotherapy) | Online ISSN 3068-6326
743
Citations
1.5m
Views
737
Articles
Volume 10 Number 1 2026
REVIEWS (Open Access)
Comprehensive Review of Foundation Toxicity Models Integrating In Vivo, In Vitro, and Chemical Knowledge for Unified Risk Prediction
Tajmin Khanam 1*, Lilufar Yeasmin 1, Mst. Farzina Akter 1
Integrative Biomedical Research 10 (1) 1-14 https://doi.org/10.25163/biomedical.10110733
Submitted: 07 March 2026 Revised: 22 April 2026 Accepted: 06 May 2026 Published: 08 May 2026
Abstract
Toxicology, perhaps more than many scientific disciplines, seems to be standing at a quiet but decisive turning point. For decades, the field relied heavily on in vivo experimentation—robust and deeply informative, yet increasingly constrained by ethical concerns, cost, and, not insignificantly, questions of human relevance. As chemical exposure grows in both scale and complexity, these traditional approaches begin to feel, if not outdated, then at least insufficient. This review explores the emergence of “foundation toxicity models,” an evolving class of integrative frameworks that attempt to bring together in vivo observations, in vitro mechanistic insights, and chemical structural knowledge into unified predictive systems. At the core of this transition lies a shift from observation to anticipation. Advances in quantitative high-throughput screening, artificial intelligence, and multi-omics technologies have made it possible to deconstruct toxicity into measurable biological perturbations. Mechanistic frameworks such as Adverse Outcome Pathways provide a conceptual scaffold, linking molecular initiating events to organism-level outcomes. Meanwhile, computational approaches—from classical QSAR models to deep learning and graph-based architectures—are increasingly capable of capturing the nonlinear complexity inherent in biological systems. And yet, the path forward is not entirely smooth. Challenges related to data heterogeneity, model interpretability, and the persistent difficulty of in vitro-to-in vivo extrapolation remain significant. Still, there is a sense—perhaps cautious, but growing—that these limitations are not insurmountable. Rather, they represent transitional constraints within a rapidly evolving paradigm. Taken together, the convergence of experimental and computational toxicology suggests a future in which toxicity is not merely detected after the fact, but predicted in advance. Foundation toxicity models, in this context, do not simply extend existing methods—they begin to redefine how chemical risk is understood, evaluated, and, ultimately, prevented.
Keywords: Predictive toxicology; Adverse Outcome Pathways; qHTS; Artificial intelligence; IVIVE
References
Amorim, A. M. B., Piochi, L. F., Gaspar, A. T., Preto, A. J., Rosário-Ferreira, N., & Moreira, I. S. (2024). Advancing drug safety in drug development: Bridging computational predictions for enhanced toxicity prediction. Chemical Research in Toxicology, 37(5), 827–849. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.chemrestox.3c00352
Ankley, G. T., Bennett, R. S., Erickson, R. J., Hoff, D. J., Hornung, M. W., Johnson, R. D., Mount, D. R., Nichols, J. W., Russom, C. L., Schmieder, P. K., & Serrano, J. A. (2010). Adverse outcome pathways: A conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 29(3), 730–741. https://doi.org/10.1002/etc.34
Benfenati, E., & Gini, G. (1997). Computational predictive programs (expert systems) in toxicology. Toxicology, 119(3), 213–225.
Borenfreund, E., & Puerner, J. A. (1985). Toxicity determined in vitro by morphological alterations and neutral red absorption. Toxicology Letters, 24, 119–124.
Bristol, D. W., Wachsman, J. T., & Greenwell, A. (1996). The NIEHS predictive-toxicology evaluation project. Environmental Health Perspectives, 104(Suppl 5), 1001–1010.
Chang, X., Kleinstreuer, N., Ceger, P., Hsieh, J.-H., Allen, D., & Casey, W. (2015). Application of reverse dosimetry to compare in vitro and in vivo estrogen receptor activity. Applied In Vitro Toxicology, 1, 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1089/aivt.2014.0005
Coecke, S., Ahr, H., Blaauboer, B. J., Bremer, S., Casati, S., Castell, J., Combes, R., Corvi, R., Crespi, C. L., Cunningham, M. J., Elaut, G., Eletti, B., Freidig, A., Gennari, A., Ghersi-Egea, J-F., Guillouzo, A., Hartung, T., Hoet, P., Ingelman-Sundberg, M., ... Worth, A. (2005). Metabolism: A bottleneck in in vitro toxicological test development. The Report and Recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 54. ATLA, 34, 49–84.
Combes, R. D., & Balls, M. (2011). Integrated testing strategies for toxicity employing new and existing technologies. ATLA, 39, 213–225.
Cronin, M. T. D., & Schultz, T. W. (2003). Pitfalls in QSAR. Journal of Molecular Structure: THEOCHEM, 622(1–2), 39–51.
Ebmeyer, J., Najjar, A., Lange, D., Boettcher, M., Voß, S., Brandmair, K., et al. (2024). Next generation risk assessment: An ab initio case study to assess the systemic safety of the cosmetic ingredient, benzyl salicylate, after dermal exposure. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 15, 1345992. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2024.1345992
Gianquinto, E., Bersani, M., Armando, L., Davani, L., Cena, C., De Simone, A., & Spyrakis, F. (2026). Toward integrative predictive toxicology: Advanced methods for drug toxicity and safety prediction. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 16(1), e70065. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcms.70065
Gottmann, E., Kramer, S., Pfahringer, B., & Helma, C. (2001). Data quality in predictive toxicology: Reproducibility of rodent carcinogenicity experiments. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(5), 509–514.
Hong, K., & Kwon, H. (2025). Toxicity prediction using vision transformers and multimodal feature fusion. Scientific Reports, 15, 9572. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-95720-5
Jarabek, A. M., & Hines, D. E. (2019). Mechanistic integration of exposure and effects: Advances to apply systems toxicology in support of regulatory decision-making. Current Opinion in Toxicology, 16, 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cotox.2019.09.001
Kavlock, R. J., Austin, C. P., & Tice, R. R. (2009). Toxicity testing in the 21st century: Implications for human health risk assessment. Risk Analysis, 29(4), 485–487.
Kim, D., & Choi, J. (2026). Application of in vitro new approach methodologies data to chemical risk assessment: Current status and perspectives toward next generation risk assessment. Frontiers in Toxicology, 8, 1754231. https://doi.org/10.3389/ftox.2026.1754231
Knudsen, T. B., Baker, N. C., Sipes, N. S., & Zurlinden, T. J. (2020). Predictive DART: In silico models and computational intelligence for developmental and reproductive toxicity. Current Opinion in Toxicology, 23-24, 119–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cotox.2020.11.001
Kreutz, A., Chang, X., Davis, H. H., & Wetmore, B. (2024). Toxicokinetic variability, physiologically based toxicokinetic model, in vitro-in vivo extrapolation, new approach methodologies, life-stage. Human Genomics, 18, 129. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-024-00691-9
Laurent, E. G. (2026). Artificial intelligence for adverse drug event prediction: Integrative multi-modal modeling, clinical translation, and regulatory alignment in pharmacovigilance. Frontline Medical Sciences and Pharmaceutical Journal, 6(3), 15–19.
Magurany, K. A., Chang, X., Clewell, R., Coecke, S., Haugabrooks, E., & Marty, S. (2023). A pragmatic framework for the application of new approach methodologies in one health toxicological risk assessment. Toxicological Sciences, 192(2), 155–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfad012
Mayr, A., Klambauer, G., Unterthiner, T., & Hochreiter, S. (2016). DeepTox: Toxicity prediction using deep learning. Frontiers in Environmental Science, 3, 80. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2015.00080
McKinney, J. D. (1985). The molecular basis of chemical toxicity. Environmental Health Perspectives, 61, 5–10.
Merlot, C. (2010). Computational toxicology—a tool for early safety evaluation. Drug Discovery Today, 15(1–2), 16–22.
Mosmann, T. (1983). Rapid colorimetric assay for cellular growth and survival. Journal of Immunological Methods, 65(1–2), 55–63.
National Research Council. (2007). Toxicity testing in the 21st century: A vision and a strategy. National Academies Press.
Paul Friedman, K., Gagne, M., Loo, L. H., Karamertzanis, P., Netzeva, T., Sobanski, T., Franzosa, J. A., Richard, A. M., Lougee, R. R., Gissi, A., Lee, J. Y., Angrish, M., Dorne, J. L., Foster, S., Raffaele, K., Bahadori, T., Gwinn, M. R., Lambert, J., Whelan, M., Rasenberg, M., Barton-Maclaren, T., & Thomas, R. S. (2025). Utility of in vitro bioactivity as a lower bound estimate of in vivo adverse effect levels and in risk-based prioritization. Toxicological Sciences, 205(1), 74–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfaf019
Paul Friedman, K., Gagne, M., Loo, L. H., Karamertzanis, P., Netzeva, T., Sobanski, T., et al. (2020). Utility of in vitro bioactivity as a lower bound estimate of in vivo adverse effect levels and in risk-based prioritization. Toxicological Sciences, 173(2), 202–225. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfz201
Paul Friedman, K., Gagne, M., Loo, L. H., Karamertzanis, P., Netzeva, T., Sobanski, T., Franzosa, J. A., Richard, A. M., Lougee, R. R., Gissi, A., Lee, J. Y., Angrish, M., Dorne, J. L., Foster, S., Raffaele, K., Bahadori, T., Gwinn, M. R., Lambert, J., Whelan, M., Rasenberg, M., Barton-Maclaren, T., & Thomas, R. S. (2025). Utility of in vitro bioactivity as a lower bound estimate of in vivo adverse effect levels and in risk-based prioritization. Toxicological Sciences, 205(1), 74–105. https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfaf019
Sariya, D., Gupta, A., Asif, M., & Rai, C. (2025). Advances in preclinical toxicology: Bridging in vitro, in vivo, and translational gaps. Biopress Journal of Advanced Pharmacology, 1(1), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17101419
Schmidt, C. W. (2009). TOX 21: New dimensions of toxicity testing. Environmental Health Perspectives, 117(8), A348–A353.
Sepehri, S., De Win, D., Heymans, A., Van Goethem, F., Rodrigues, R. M., Rogiers, V., et al. (2025). Next generation risk assessment of hair dye HC yellow no. 13: Ensuring protection from liver steatogenic effects. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 159, 105794. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2025.105794
Sharma, B., Chenthamarakshan, V., Dhurandhar, A., Pereira, S., Hendler, J. A., Dordick, J. S., & Das, P. (2023). Accurate clinical toxicity prediction using multi-task deep neural nets and contrastive molecular explanations. Scientific Reports, 13(1), 4908. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-31169-8
Shukla, S. J., Huang, R., Austin, C. P., & Xia, M. (2010). The future of toxicity testing. Drug Discovery Today, 15(23–24), 997–1007.
Sun, H., Xia, M., Austin, C. P., & Huang, R. (2012). Paradigm shift in toxicity testing and modeling. The AAPS Journal, 14(3), 473-480. https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-012-9358-1
Thomas, R. S., Philbert, M. A., Auerbach, S. S., Wetmore, B. A., Devito, M. J., Cote, I., Rowlands, J. C., Whelan, M. P., Hays, S. M., & Andersen, M. E. (2013). Incorporating new technologies into toxicity testing. Toxicological Sciences, 136(1), 4–18.
Ward, D. K., et al. (2021). Explainability modules integrate feature importance analysis to identify clinically salient predictors. Frontiers in Pharmacology.
Zhang, Q., Li, J., Middleton, A., Bhattacharya, S., & Conolly, R. B. (2018). Bridging the data gap from in vitro toxicity testing to chemical safety assessment through computational modeling. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00261
Zhang, R., Wen, H., Lin, Z., Li, B., & Zhou, X. (2025). Artificial intelligence-driven drug toxicity prediction: Advances, challenges, and future directions. Toxics, 13, 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13070525
Zhang, R., Wen, H., Lin, Z., Li, B., & Zhou, X. (2025). Artificial intelligence-driven drug toxicity prediction: Advances, challenges, and future directions. Toxics, 13, 525. https://doi.org/10.3390/toxics13070525
Zhu, H., Rusyn, I., Richard, A., & Tropsha, A. (2008). Improved QSAR models using cell viability data. Environmental Health Perspectives, 116(4), 506–513.
Ziemba, B. (2025). Advances in cytotoxicity testing: From in vitro assays to in silico models. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 26, 11202. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms262211202
Recommended articles
Illuminating Biological Dark Matter: Integrating Metagenomics, Synthetic Biology, and AI to Unlock Microbial and Genomic Potential for Therapeutics and Biotechnology
RETRACTED ARTICLE: Predicting Parkinson’s Disease Progression Using Statistical And Neural Mixed Effects Models: Comparative Study On Longitudinal Biomarkers
2
Save
Save
0
Citation
Citation
18
View
View
0
Share
Share