The Use of<i>In Vitro</i>Systems for Evaluating Immunotoxicity: The Report and Recommendations of an ECVAM Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the report of a workshop organised by the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods (ECVAM). ECVAM's main goal, as defined in 1993 by its Scientific Advisory Committee, is to promote the scientific and regulatory acceptance of alternative methods that are of importance to the biosciences and which replace, reduce or refine the use of laboratory animals. One of the first priorities set by ECVAM was the implementation of procedures that would enable it to become well informed about the state-of-the-art of non-animal test development and validation, and the potential for the possible incorporation of alternative tests into regulatory procedures. It was decided that this would be best achieved by the organization of ECVAM workshops on specific topics, at which small groups of invited experts would review the current status of various types of in vitro tests and their potential uses, and make recommendations about the best ways forward (Anonymous, 1994). The workshop on "The use of in vitro systems for evaluating Immunotoxicity" was held at ECVAM (Ispra), Italy, on 24th-26th November 2003. The participants represented academia, national organizations, international regulatory bodies and industry. The aim of the workshop was to review the state-of-the-art in the field of in vitro immunotoxicology, and to develop strategies towards the replacement of in vivo testing. At the end of this report are listed the recommendations that should be considered for prevalidation and validation of relevant and reliable procedures, that could replace the use of animals in chemical and cosmetics toxicity 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 | 0.066 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
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".