Estimating metabolic biotransformation rates in fish from laboratory data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method is proposed for estimating metabolic biotransformation rate constants for nonionic organic chemicals from measured laboratory bioconcentration and dietary bioaccumulation data in fish. Data have been selected based on a quality review to reduce uncertainty in the measured values. A kinetic mass balance model is used to estimate rates of chemical uptake and elimination. Biotransformation rate constants are essentially calculated as the difference between two quantities, a measured bioconcentration factor or elimination rate constant, and a model-derived bioconcentration factor or elimination rate constant estimated assuming no biotransformation. Model parameterization exploits key empirical data when they are available and assumes default values when study specific data are unavailable. Uncertainty analyses provide screening level assessments for confidence in the biotransformation rate constant estimates. The uncertainty analyses include the range for 95% of the predicted values and 95% confidence intervals for the calculated biotransformation values. Case studies are provided to illustrate the calculation and uncertainty methods. Biotransformation rate constants calculated by the proposed method are compared with other published estimates for 31 chemicals that range in octanol-water partition coefficients from approximately 10(1) to 10(8) and represent over four orders of magnitude in biotransformation potential. The comparison of previously published values with those calculated by the proposed method shows general agreement with 82% of the estimated values falling within a factor of three.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".