MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W195977551 · doi:10.2741/975

Standardized protocols for photocarcinogenesis safety testing

2003· review· en· W195977551 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
P. Donald Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in bioscience · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSkin cancerMedicineDrugUltraviolet radiationCancerNoticeToxicologyDermatologyPharmacologyEnvironmental healthChemistryBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Solar ultraviolet radiation (UVR) is recognized as a major cause of non-melanoma skin cancer in man. Skin cancer occurs most frequently in the most heavily exposed areas and correlates with degree of outdoor exposure. The incidence of skin cancer is also increased by contact with photosensitizing drugs and chemicals such as psoralens, coal tars and petroleum stocks. Other substances which do not act as photosensitizers, such as immunosuppressants taken by organ transplant recipients, also increase the risk of skin cancer. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration requests, on a case-by-case basis, that risk of enhanced photocarcinogenesis is assessed for many classes of drugs. Health Canada's Therapeutic Products Programme has issued a Notice of Intent to regulate pharmaceutical products which may enhance carcinogenicity of the skin induced by ultraviolet radiation. Other national regulatory agencies review such data when they exist, but their own requirements emphasize batteries of short-term in vitro and in vivo tests. While they may support drug development strategies, short-term tests have yet to be validated as predictors of the ability of drugs or chemicals to enhance photocarcinogenesis. Published protocols now describe study designs and procedures capable of determining whether test agents enhance the rate of formation of UVR-induced skin tumors.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.031

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.

Opus teacher head0.136
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in bioscienceSame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207