Guidance for evaluating in vivo fish bioaccumulation data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Currently, the laboratory-derived fish bioconcentration factor (BCF) serves as one of the primary data sources used to assess the potential for a chemical to bioaccumulate. Consequently, fish BCF values serve a central role in decision making and provide the basis for development of quantitative structure-property relationships (QSPRs) used to predict the bioaccumulation potential of untested compounds. However, practical guidance for critically reviewing experimental BCF studies is limited. This lack of transparent guidance hinders improvement in predictive models and can lead to uninformed chemical management decisions. To address this concern, a multiple-stakeholder workshop of experts from government, industry, and academia was convened by the International Life Sciences Institute Health and Environmental Sciences Institute to examine the data availability and quality issues associated with in vivo fish bioconcentration and bioaccumulation data. This paper provides guidance for evaluating key aspects of study design and conduct that must be considered when judging the reliability and adequacy of reported laboratory bioaccumulation data. Key criteria identified for judging study reliability include 1) clear specification of test substance and fish species investigated, 2) analysis of test substance in both fish tissue and exposure medium, 3) no significant adverse effects on exposed test fish, and 4) a reported test BCF that reflects steady-state conditions with unambiguous units. This guidance is then applied to 2 data-rich chemicals (anthracene and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) to illustrate the critical need for applying a systematic data quality assessment process. Use of these guidelines will foster development of more accurate QSPR models, improve the performance and reporting of future laboratory studies, and strengthen the technical basis for bioaccumulation assessment in chemicals management.
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 | 0.190 | 0.237 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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".