The Future of Toxicity Testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2007, the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) released a report, "Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy," that proposes a paradigm shift for toxicity testing of environmental agents. The vision is based on the notion that exposure to environmental agents leads to adverse health outcomes through the perturbation of toxicity pathways that are operative in humans. Implementation of the NRC vision will involve a fundamental change in the assessment of toxicity of environmental agents, moving away from adverse health outcomes observed in experimental animals to the identification of critical perturbations of toxicity pathways. Pathway perturbations will be identified using in vitro assays and quantified for dose response using methods in computational toxicology and other recent scientific advances in basic biology. Implementation of the NRC vision will require a major research effort, not unlike that required to successfully map the human genome, extending over 10 to 20 years, involving the broad scientific community to map important toxicity pathways operative in humans. This article provides an overview of the scientific tools and technologies that will form the core of the NRC vision for toxicity testing. Of particular importance will be the development of rapidly performed in vitro screening assays using human cells and cell lines or human tissue surrogates to efficiently identify environmental agents producing critical pathway perturbations. In addition to the overview of the NRC vision, this study documents the reaction by a number of stakeholder groups since 2007, including the scientific, risk assessment, regulatory, and animal welfare communities.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".