Integrated Model of Chemical Perturbations of a Biological Pathway Using 18<i>In Vitro</i>High-Throughput Screening Assays for the Estrogen Receptor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We demonstrate a computational network model that integrates 18 in vitro, high-throughput screening assays measuring estrogen receptor (ER) binding, dimerization, chromatin binding, transcriptional activation, and ER-dependent cell proliferation. The network model uses activity patterns across the in vitro assays to predict whether a chemical is an ER agonist or antagonist, or is otherwise influencing the assays through a manner dependent on the physics and chemistry of the technology platform ("assay interference"). The method is applied to a library of 1812 commercial and environmental chemicals, including 45 ER positive and negative reference chemicals. Among the reference chemicals, the network model correctly identified the agonists and antagonists with the exception of very weak compounds whose activity was outside the concentration range tested. The model agonist score also correlated with the expected potency class of the active reference chemicals. Of the 1812 chemicals evaluated, 111 (6.1%) were predicted to be strongly ER active in agonist or antagonist mode. This dataset and model were also used to begin a systematic investigation of assay interference. The most prominent cause of false-positive activity (activity in an assay that is likely not due to interaction of the chemical with ER) is cytotoxicity. The model provides the ability to prioritize a large set of important environmental chemicals with human exposure potential for additional in vivo endocrine testing. Finally, this model is generalizable to any molecular pathway for which there are multiple upstream and downstream assays available.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".