HYPOTHESIS AND THEORY article
Front. Toxicol.
Sec. Computational Toxicology and Informatics
A Pragmatic Workflow for Integrating Large Language Models into Toxicological Risk Assessment
- AB
Arianna Bassan 1
- AA
Alexander Amberg 2
- ML
Maria Letizia Barreca 3
- PB
Paul Bradley 4
- FB
Frank Bringezu 5
- JD
Joyce De Paula Souza 6
- CG
Corinne Guicheney 7
- EL
Elena Lo Piparo 8
- SK
Simona Kovarich 9
- AM
Andrey Massarsky 10
- GM
Georgia Maundrill 11
- LM
Lance Molnar 12
- CP
Cristina Parenti 13
- PP
Patricia Parris 14
- MP
Manuela Pavan 1
- JR
John Reichard 15
- RS
Ron Steigerwalt 16
- OT
Olga Tcheremenskaia 13
- KU
Kenneth Unice 17
- CJ
Christopher J. Waine 18
- GW
Geraldine Whelan 11
- AW
Angela White 11
- GJ
Glenn J. Myatt 19
1. Innovatune srl, Padova, Italy
2. Preclinical Safety, Sanofi, Frankfurt, Germany
3. In silico Drug Discovery Lab (I2D Lab), Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Perugia, Perugia, Italy
4. Paul Bradley consulting, Royston, United Kingdom
5. Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany
6. Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
7. Global Toxicology Services, KaLy-Cell, a company of GBA Pharma, Plobsheim, France
8. Global Regulatory Affairs, Sciences & Strategy, FMC, Geneva, Switzerland
9. Global Regulatory & Computational Toxicology Team, Hazard Communication and Chemicals Regulations, Merck Life Science S.r.l., Milan, Italy
10. Stantec Consulting Services Inc., Irvine, CA, United States
11. GlaxoSmithKline Medicines Research Centre, GSK, Stevenage, United Kingdom
12. Global Pharmacology and Toxicology, Viatris, Morgantown, WV, United States
13. Environment and Health Department, Istituto Superiore di Sanità , Rome, Italy
14. Pfizer Worldwide Research, Development and Medical, Sandwich, United Kingdom
15. Department of Environmental and Public Health Sciences, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States
16. Ron Steigerwalt Regulatory Tox Consulting LLC, Palm Springs, CA, United States
17. Strategic Health Sciences, TRC Companies, Pittsburgh, PA, United States
18. BIBRA Toxicology Advice and Consulting Ltd, Wallington, United Kingdom
19. Informence Labs LLC, St. Petersburg, FL, United States
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
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly large language models (LLMs), offers promising support for toxicological risk assessment (TRA), which integrates multiple lines of evidence to support health-based conclusions, including those used in regulatory decision-making. Effective use of LLMs in TRA requires a clear understanding of their strengths and limitations, especially in the context of regulatory expectations for transparency, reproducibility, and accountability. This work explores the emerging role of LLMs in TRA through three integrated components: an overview of LLMs in the context of TRA, an exemplar case study examining LLM-assisted derivation (mainly using ChatGPT) of the Permitted Daily Exposure (PDE) for acetyl tributyl citrate under the draft ICH Q3E guideline, and a workflow hypothesis for the integration of LLMs into TRA. Observations from the case study suggest that LLMs may support pattern recognition, targeted information retrieval, and rapid summarization of large bodies of text, facilitating literature triage, extraction of study details, and evidence summaries. At the same time, the case study highlights important limitations for LLMs. Observed variability in LLM outputs reflects both inherent model stochastic behavior, model limitations, and the intrinsic complexity of TRA, where different experts may reasonably reach distinct, yet scientifically defensible conclusions based on the available evidence. The observations from the case study, interpreted in the context of the available literature, are used to inform a hypothesis that LLMs may be most effectively integrated into TRA through structured, modular, human-supervised workflows. This hypothesis reflects the view that the suitability of LLM-assisted TRA depends not only on LLM capabilities, but also on how LLMs are integrated into the assessment process to address both LLM variability and the interpretive nature of TRA. The proposed pragmatic workflow separates data search, information extraction, and integrated summarization while maintaining human-in-the-loop control over interpretation, expert judgment, and final conclusions.
Summary
Keywords
AI, human-in-the-loop, LLM, PDE, Pragmatic workflow, Toxicological risk assessment
Received
09 May 2026
Accepted
12 August 2026
Copyright
© 2026 Bassan, Amberg, Barreca, Bradley, Bringezu, De Paula Souza, Guicheney, Lo Piparo, Kovarich, Massarsky, Maundrill, Molnar, Parenti, Parris, Pavan, Reichard, Steigerwalt, Tcheremenskaia, Unice, Waine, Whelan, White and Myatt. 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: Arianna Bassan
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.