Optimal Designs for Estimating the Effective Dose in Developmental Toxicity Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent advances in risk assessment have led to the development of joint dose-response models to describe prenatal death and fetal malformation rates in developmental toxicity experiments. These models can be used to estimate the effective dose corresponding to a 5% excess risk for both these toxicological endpoints, as well as for overall toxicity. In this article, we develop optimal experimental designs for the estimation of the effective dose for developmental toxicity using joint Weibull dose-response models for prenatal death and fetal malformation. Based on an extended series of developmental studies, near-optimal designs for prenatal death, malformation, and overall toxicity were found to involve three dose groups: an unexposed control group, a high dose equal to the maximum tolerated dose, and a low dose above or comparable to the effective dose. The effect on the optimal designs of changing the number of implants and the degree of intra-litter correlation is also investigated. Although the optimal design has only three dose groups in most cases, practical considerations involving model lack of fit and estimation of the shape of the dose-response curve suggest that, in practice, suboptimal designs with more than three doses will often be preferred.
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 | 0.073 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".