Impact of Genomics Platform and Statistical Filtering on Transcriptional Benchmark Doses (BMD) and Multiple Approaches for Selection of Chemical Point of Departure (PoD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many regulatory agencies are exploring ways to integrate toxicogenomic data into their chemical risk assessments. The major challenge lies in determining how to distill the complex data produced by high-content, multi-dose gene expression studies into quantitative information. It has been proposed that benchmark dose (BMD) values derived from toxicogenomics data be used as point of departure (PoD) values in chemical risk assessments. However, there is limited information regarding which genomics platforms are most suitable and how to select appropriate PoD values. In this study, we compared BMD values modeled from RNA sequencing-, microarray-, and qPCR-derived gene expression data from a single study, and explored multiple approaches for selecting a single PoD from these data. The strategies evaluated include several that do not require prior mechanistic knowledge of the compound for selection of the PoD, thus providing approaches for assessing data-poor chemicals. We used RNA extracted from the livers of female mice exposed to non-carcinogenic (0, 2 mg/kg/day, mkd) and carcinogenic (4, 8 mkd) doses of furan for 21 days. We show that transcriptional BMD values were consistent across technologies and highly predictive of the two-year cancer bioassay-based PoD. We also demonstrate that filtering data based on statistically significant changes in gene expression prior to BMD modeling creates more conservative BMD values. Taken together, this case study on mice exposed to furan demonstrates that high-content toxicogenomics studies produce robust data for BMD modelling that are minimally affected by inter-technology variability and highly predictive of cancer-based PoD doses.
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 | 0.030 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".