Critical predicted no effect concentrations (PNECs) should not be based on a single toxicity test
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicted no-effect concentrations (PNECs), which represent the concentration of a substance below which an unacceptable effect most likely will not occur, are widely used for risk assessment and in environmental policy and regulation. They are typically based on single-species laboratory toxicity tests; often, a single test result for the most sensitive endpoints drives the derivation of a PNEC. In the present study, the authors provide a case study emphasizing the importance of determining the reliability of those most sensitive endpoints. Five 21-d Daphnia magna toxicity tests conducted using the same procedures by 2 laboratories gave 20% inhibitory concentration responses to a specific ionic composition of total dissolved solids that varied from 684 mg/L to more than 1510 mg/L. The concentration-response curve was shallow; thus, these differences could have been attributable to chance alone. The authors strongly recommend that the most sensitive endpoints that determine PNECs not be based on a single toxicity test result but rather on the geometric mean of at least 3 test results to adequately assess and bound test variability, especially when the concentration-response curve is shallow.
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 | 0.021 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".