Characterization of the human kinetic adjustment factor for the health risk assessment of environmental contaminants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A default uncertainty factor of 3.16 (√10) is applied to account for interindividual variability in toxicokinetics when performing non-cancer risk assessments. Using relevant human data for specific chemicals, as WHO/IPCS suggests, it is possible to evaluate, and replace when appropriate, this default factor by quantifying chemical-specific adjustment factors for interindividual variability in toxicokinetics (also referred to as the human kinetic adjustment factor, HKAF). The HKAF has been determined based on the distributions of pharmacokinetic parameters (e.g., half-life, area under the curve, maximum blood concentration) in relevant populations. This article focuses on the current state of knowledge of the use of physiologically based algorithms and models in characterizing the HKAF for environmental contaminants. The recent modeling efforts on the computation of HKAF as a function of the characteristics of the population, chemical and its mode of action (dose metrics), as well as exposure scenario of relevance to the assessment are reviewed here. The results of these studies, taken together, suggest the HKAF varies as a function of the sensitive subpopulation and dose metrics of interest, exposure conditions considered (route, duration, and intensity), metabolic pathways involved and theoretical model underlying its computation. The HKAF seldom exceeded the default value of 3.16, except in very young children (i.e., <≈ 3 months) and when the parent compound is the toxic moiety. Overall, from a public health perspective, the current state of knowledge generally suggest that the default uncertainty factor is sufficient to account for human variability in non-cancer risk assessments of environmental contaminants.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".