Recent developments in frameworks to consider human relevance of hypothesized modes of action for tumours in animals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper summarizes recent developments in the continuing evolution of Human Relevance Frameworks to systematically consider the weight of evidence of hypothesized modes of action in animals and their potential human relevance for both cancer and non-cancer effects. These frameworks have been developed in initiatives of the International Life Sciences Institute Risk Sciences Institute and the International Programme on Chemical Safety engaging large numbers of scientists internationally. They are analytical tools designed to organize information in hazard characterization as a basis to clarify the extent of the weight of evidence for mode of action in animals and human relevance and subsequent implications for dose-response. They are also extremely helpful in identifying critical data gaps. These frameworks which are illustrated by an increasing number of case studies, have been widely adopted into international and national guidance and assessments and continue to evolve, as experience increases in their application.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it