Integrating toxicogenomics into human health risk assessment: Lessons learned from the benzo[<i>a</i>]pyrene case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of short-term toxicogenomic tests to predict cancer (or other health effects) offers considerable advantages relative to traditional toxicity testing methods. The advantages include increased throughput, increased mechanistic data, and significantly reduced costs. However, precisely how toxicogenomics data can be used to support human health risk assessment (RA) is unclear. In a companion paper ( Moffat et al. 2014 ), we present a case study evaluating the utility of toxicogenomics in the RA of benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), a known human carcinogen. The case study is meant as a proof-of-principle exercise using a well-established mode of action (MOA) that impacts multiple tissues, which should provide a best case example. We found that toxicogenomics provided rich mechanistic data applicable to hazard identification, dose-response analysis, and quantitative RA of BaP. Based on this work, here we share some useful lessons for both research and RA, and outline our perspective on how toxicogenomics can benefit RA in the short- and long-term. Specifically, we focus on (1) obtaining biologically relevant data that are readily suitable for establishing an MOA for toxicants, (2) examining the human relevance of an MOA from animal testing, and (3) proposing appropriate quantitative values for RA. We describe our envisioned strategy on how toxicogenomics can become a tool in RA, especially when anchored to other short-term toxicity tests (apical endpoints) to increase confidence in the proposed MOA, and emphasize the need for additional studies on other MOAs to define the best practices in the application of toxicogenomics in RA.
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 | 0.017 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".