Application of a novel integrated toxicity testing strategy incorporating “3R” principles of animal research to evaluate the safety of a new agrochemical sulfoxaflor
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Plant protection products (PPPs) and the active substance(s) contained within them are rigorously and comprehensively tested prior to registration to ensure that human health is not impacted by their use. In recent years, there has been a widespread drive to have more relevant testing strategies (e.g., ILSI/HESI-ACSA and new EU Directives), which also take account of animal welfare, including the 3R (replacement, refinement, and reduction) principles. The toxicity potential of one such new active substance, sulfoxaflor, a sulfoximine insecticide (CAS #946578-00-3), was evaluated utilizing innovative testing strategies comprising: (1) an integrated testing scheme to optimize information obtained from as few animals as possible (i.e., 3R principles) through modifications of standard protocols, such as enhanced palatability study design, to include molecular endpoints, additional neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity parameters in a subchronic toxicity study, and combining multiple test guidelines into one study protocol; (2) generation of toxicokinetic data across dose levels, sexes, study durations, species, strains and life stages, without using satellite animals, which was a first for PPP development, and (3) addition of prospective mode of action (MoA) endpoints within repeat dose toxicity studies as well as proactive inclusion of specific MoA studies as an integral part of the development program. These novel approaches to generate key data early in the safety evaluation program facilitated informed decision-making on the need for additional studies and contributed to a more relevant human health risk assessment. This supplement also contains papers which describe in more detail the approach taken to establish the MoA and human relevance framework related to toxicities elicited by sulfoxaflor in the mammalian toxicology studies: developmental toxicity in rats mediated via the fetal muscle nicotinic acetylcholine receptor (nAChR) ( Ellis-Hutchings et al. 2014 ); liver tumors in rodents mediated via CAR/PXR ( LeBaron et al. 2014 ); and Leydig cell tumors in Fischer 344 rats ( Rasoulpour et al. 2014 ).
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
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".