PERSPECTIVE article
Front. Artif. Intell.
Sec. Medicine and Public Health
This article is part of the Research TopicHarnessing Artificial Intelligence for Next-Generation Predictive ToxicologyView all articles
Advancing the implementation of artificial intelligence in regulatory frameworks for chemical safety assessment by defining robust readiness criteria
Provisionally accepted- 1University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
- 2Swiss Centre for Applied Human Toxicology, Basel, Switzerland
- 3Institute of Chemistry, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia
- 4Birmingham Law School, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
- 5Department Risk Assessment, Austrian Agency for Health and Food (AGES), Vienna, Austria
- 6Department Risk Assessment, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Vienna, Austria
- 7French Agency for Food, Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (ANSES), Maisons-Alfort, France
- 8Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research, Milan, Italy
- 9Environment & Health Department, Italian National Institute of Health (ISS), Rome, Italy
- 10Swedish Chemicals Agency (KEMI), Stockholm, Sweden
- 11Faculty of Chemistry, University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland
- 12QSAR Lab Ltd, Gdańsk, Poland
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into chemical risk assessment (CRA) is emerging as a powerful approach to enhance the interpretation of complex toxicological data and accelerate safety evaluations. However, the regulatory uptake of AI remains limited due to concerns about transparency, explainability, and trustworthiness. The European Partnership for the Assessment of Risks from Chemicals (PARC) project ReadyAI was established to address these challenges by developing a readiness scoring system to evaluate the maturity and regulatory applicability of AI-based models in CRA. The project unites a multidisciplinary consortium of academic, regulatory, and legal experts to define transparent and reproducible criteria encompassing data curation, model development, validation, explainability, and uncertainty quantification. Current efforts focus on identifying key priorities, including harmonized terminology, rigorous data quality standards, case studies, and targeted training of regulatory scientists. ReadyAI aims to deliver a practical, evidence-based scoring system that enables regulators to assess whether AI tools are sufficiently reliable for decision-making and guides developers toward compliance with regulatory expectations. By bridging the gap between AI innovation and regulatory applicability, ReadyAI contributes to the responsible integration of AI into chemical safety assessment frameworks, ultimately supporting human and environmental health protection.
Keywords: artificial intelligence, chemical risk assessment, Chemical safety assessment, Readiness criteria, Regulatory frameworks, Regulatory Science
Received: 03 Nov 2025; Accepted: 17 Dec 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 De Paula Souza, Blum, Maran, Sild, Dawson, Čavoški, Holden, Lee, Plichta, Meusburger, Fraize-Frontier, Walsh, Riviere, Raitano, Roncaglioni, Di Consiglio, Tcheremenskaia, Bossa, Wendt-Rasch, Puzyn and Fritsche. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Joyce De Paula Souza
Tomasz Puzyn
Ellen Fritsche
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
