A Signal-to-Noise Crossover Dose as the Point of Departure for Health Risk Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP) cancer bioassay database provides an opportunity to compare both existing and new approaches to determining points of departure (PoDs) for establishing reference doses (RfDs). OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were a) to investigate the risk associated with the traditional PoD used in human health risk assessment [the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)]; b) to present a new approach based on the signal-to-noise crossover dose (SNCD); and c) to compare the SNCD and SNCD-based RfD with PoDs and RfDs based on the NOAEL and benchmark dose (BMD) approaches. METHODS: The complete NTP database was used as the basis for these analyses, which were performed using the Hill model. We determined NOAELs and estimated corresponding extra risks. Lower 95% confidence bounds on the BMD (BMDLs) corresponding to extra risks of 1%, 5%, and 10% (BMDL01, BMDL05, and BMDL10, respectively) were also estimated. We introduce the SNCD as a new PoD, defined as the dose where the additional risk is equal to the "background noise" (the difference between the upper and lower bounds of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on absolute risk) or a specified fraction thereof. RESULTS: The median risk at the NOAEL was approximately 10%, and the default uncertainty factor (UF = 100) was considered most applicable to the BMDL10. Therefore, we chose a target risk of 1/1,000 (0.1/100) to derive an SNCD-based RfD by linear extrapolation. At the median, this approach provided the same RfD as the BMDL10 divided by the default UF. CONCLUSIONS: Under a standard BMD approach, the BMDL10 is considered to be the most appropriate PoD. The SNCD approach, which is based on the lowest dose at which the signal can be reliably detected, warrants further development as a PoD for human health risk assessment.
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 | 0.029 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".