Empirical analysis of BMD metrics in genetic toxicology part I:<i>in vitro</i>analyses to provide robust potency rankings and support MOA determinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genetic toxicity testing has traditionally been used for hazard identification, with dichotomous classification of test results serving to identify genotoxic agents. However, the utility of genotoxicity data can be augmented by employing dose-response analysis and point of departure determination. Via interpolation from a fitted dose-response model, the benchmark dose (BMD) approach estimates the dose that elicits a specified (small) effect size. BMD metrics and their confidence intervals can be used for compound potency ranking within an endpoint, as well as potency comparisons across other factors such as cell line or exposure duration. A recently developed computational method, the BMD covariate approach, permits combined analysis of multiple dose-response data sets that are differentiated by covariates such as compound, cell type or exposure regime. The approach provides increased BMD precision for effective potency rankings across compounds and other covariates that pertain to a hypothesised mode of action (MOA). To illustrate these applications, the covariate approach was applied to the analysis of published in vitro micronucleus frequency dose-response data for ionising radiations, a set of aneugens, two mutagenic azo compounds and a topoisomerase II inhibitor. The ionising radiation results show that the precision of BMD estimates can be improved by employing the covariate method. The aneugen analysis provided potency groupings based on the BMD confidence intervals, and analyses of azo compound data from cells lines with differing metabolic capacity confirmed the influence of endogenous metabolism on genotoxic potency. This work, which is the first of a two-part series, shows that BMD-derived potency rankings can be employed to support MOA evaluations as well as facilitate read across to expedite chemical evaluations and regulatory decision-making. The follow-up (Part II) employs the combined covariate approach to analyse in vivo genetic toxicity dose-response data focussing on how improvements in BMD precision can impact the reduction and refinement of animal use in toxicological research.
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 | 0.019 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".