Pharmaceutical toxicology: Designing studies to reduce animal use, while maximizing human translation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of the safety of new chemicals and pharmaceuticals requires the combination of information from various sources (e.g. in vitro, in silico and in vivo) to provide an assessment of risk to human health and the environment. The authors have identified opportunities to maximize the predictivity of this information to humans while reducing animal use in four key areas; (i) accelerating the uptake of in vitro methods; (ii) incorporating the latest science into safety pharmacology assessments; (iii) optimizing rodent study design in biological development and (iv) consolidating approaches in developmental and reproductive toxicology. Through providing a forum for open discussion of novel proposals, reviewing current research and obtaining expert opinion in each of the four areas, the authors have developed recommendations on good practice and future strategy.
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 | 0.197 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".