The physicochemical basis of QSARs for baseline toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The physico-chemical properties relevant to the equilibrium partitioning (bioconcentration) of chemicals between organisms and their respired media of water and air are reviewed and illustrated for chemicals that range in hydrophobicity. Relationships are then explored between freely dissolved external concentrations such as LC50s and chemical properties for one important toxicity mechanism, namely baseline toxicity or narcosis. The 'activity hypothesis' proposed by Ferguson in 1939 provides a coherent and compelling explanation for baseline toxicity of chemicals in both water- and air-respiring organisms, as well as a reference point for identifying more specific toxicity pathways. From inhalation studies with fish and rodents, narcosis is shown to occur at a chemical activity exceeding approximately 0.01 and there is no evidence of narcosis at activities less than 0.001. The activity hypothesis provides a framework for directly comparing the toxic potency of chemicals in both air- and water-breathing animals. The activity hypothesis is shown to be consistent with the critical body residue concept, but it has the advantage of avoiding the confounding effect of lipid content of the test organism. It also provides a theoretically sound basis for assessing the baseline toxicity of mixtures. It is suggested that since activity is readily calculated from fugacity, observed or predicted environmental abiotic and biotic fugacities can be used to evaluate the potential for baseline toxicity. Further, models employing fugacity or activity can be used to improve the experimental design of bioassays, thus possibly reducing unnecessary animal testing.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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".