Comparison of toxicogenomics and traditional approaches to inform mode of action and points of departure in human health risk assessment of benzo[<i>a</i>]pyrene in drinking water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toxicogenomics is proposed to be a useful tool in human health risk assessment. However, a systematic comparison of traditional risk assessment approaches with those applying toxicogenomics has never been done. We conducted a case study to evaluate the utility of toxicogenomics in the risk assessment of benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), a well-studied carcinogen, for drinking water exposures. Our study was intended to compare methodologies, not to evaluate drinking water safety. We compared traditional (RA1), genomics-informed (RA2) and genomics-only (RA3) approaches. RA2 and RA3 applied toxicogenomics data from human cell cultures and mice exposed to BaP to determine if these data could provide insight into BaP's mode of action (MOA) and derive tissue-specific points of departure (POD). Our global gene expression analysis supported that BaP is genotoxic in mice and allowed the development of a detailed MOA. Toxicogenomics analysis in human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells demonstrated a high degree of consistency in perturbed pathways with animal tissues. Quantitatively, the PODs for traditional and transcriptional approaches were similar (liver 1.2 vs. 1.0 mg/kg-bw/day; lungs 0.8 vs. 3.7 mg/kg-bw/day; forestomach 0.5 vs. 7.4 mg/kg-bw/day). RA3, which applied toxicogenomics in the absence of apical toxicology data, demonstrates that this approach provides useful information in data-poor situations. Overall, our study supports the use of toxicogenomics as a relatively fast and cost-effective tool for hazard identification, preliminary evaluation of potential carcinogens, and carcinogenic potency, in addition to identifying current limitations and practical questions for future work.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".