http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5401-9706
![Sample our Environment & Sustainability journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5935/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Sustainability.jpg"})
Abstract
Predictive testing to characterise substances for their skin sensitisation potential has historically been based on animal models such as the Local Lymph Node Assay (LLNA) and the Guinea Pig Maximisation Test (GPMT). In recent years, EU regulations, have provided a strong incentive to develop non-animal alternatives, such as expert systems software. Here we selected three different types of expert systems: VEGA (statistical), Derek Nexus (knowledge-based) and TIMES-SS (hybrid), and evaluated their performance using two large sets of animal data: one set of 1249 substances from eChemportal and a second set of 515 substances from NICEATM. A model was considered successful at predicting skin sensitisation potential if it had at least the same balanced accuracy as the LLNA and the GPMT had in predicting the other outcomes, which ranged from 79% to 86%. We found that the highest balanced accuracy of any of the expert systems evaluated was 65% when making global predictions. For substances within the domain of TIMES-SS, however, balanced accuracies for the two datasets were found to be 79% and 82%. In those cases where a chemical was within the TIMES-SS domain, the TIMES-SS skin sensitisation hazard prediction had the same confidence as the result from LLNA or GPMT.
