Application of the Activity Framework for Assessing Aquatic Ecotoxicology Data for Organic Chemicals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toxicological research in the 1930s gave the first indications of the link between narcotic toxicity and the chemical activity of organic chemicals. More recently, chemical activity has been proposed as a novel exposure parameter that describes the fraction of saturation and that quantifies the potential for partitioning and diffusive uptake. In the present study, more than 2000 acute and chronic algal, aquatic invertebrates and fish toxicity data, as well as water solubility and melting point values, were collected from a series of sources. The data were critically reviewed and grouped by mode of action (MoA). We considered 660 toxicity data to be of acceptable quality. The 328 data which applied to the 72 substances identified as MoA 1 were then evaluated within the activity-toxicity framework: EC50 and LC50 values for all three taxa correlated generally well with (subcooled) liquid solubilities. Acute toxicity was typically exerted within the chemical activity range of 0.01-0.1, whereas chronic toxicity was exerted in the range of 0.001-0.01. These results confirm that chemical activity has the potential to contribute to the determination, interpretation and prediction of toxicity to aquatic organisms. It also has the potential to enhance regulation of organic chemicals by linking results from laboratory tests, monitoring and modeling programs. The framework can provide an additional line of evidence for assessing aquatic toxicity, for improving the design of toxicity tests, reducing animal usage and addressing chemical mixtures.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".