Application of benchmark dose modeling to protein expression data in the development and analysis of mode of action/adverse outcome pathways for testicular toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable quantification of gene and protein expression has potential to contribute significantly to the characterization of hypothesized modes of action (MOA) or adverse outcome pathways for critical effects of toxicants. Quantitative analysis of gene expression by benchmark dose (BMD) modeling has been facilitated by the development of effective software tools. In contrast, protein expression is still generally quantified by a less robust effect level (no or lowest [adverse] effect levels) approach, which minimizes its potential utility in the consideration of dose-response and temporal concordance for key events in hypothesized MOAs. BMD modeling is applied here to toxicological data on testicular toxicity to investigate its potential utility in analyzing protein expression relevant to the proposed MOA to inform human health risk assessment. The results illustrate how the BMD analysis of protein expression in animal tissues in response to toxicant exposure: (1) complements other toxicity data, and (2) contributes to consideration of the empirical concordance of dose-response relationships, as part of the weight of evidence for hypothesized MOAs to facilitate consideration and application in regulatory risk assessment. Lack of BMD analysis in proteomics has likely limited its use for these purposes. This paper illustrates the added value of BMD modeling to support and strengthen hypothetical MOAs as a basis to facilitate the translation and uptake of the results of proteomic research into risk assessment.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".