Assessing the safety of cosmetic chemicals: Consideration of a flux decision tree to predict dermally delivered systemic dose for comparison with oral TTC (Threshold of Toxicological Concern)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) aids assessment of human health risks from exposure to low levels of chemicals when toxicity data are limited. The objective here was to explore the potential refinement of exposure for applying the oral TTC to chemicals found in cosmetic products, for which there are limited dermal absorption data. A decision tree was constructed to estimate the dermally absorbed amount of chemical, based on typical skin exposure scenarios. Dermal absorption was calculated using an established predictive algorithm to derive the maximum skin flux adjusted to the actual 'dose' applied. The predicted systemic availability (assuming no local metabolism), can then be ranked against the oral TTC for the relevant structural class. The predictive approach has been evaluated by deriving the experimental/prediction ratio for systemic availability for 22 cosmetic chemical exposure scenarios. These emphasise that estimation of skin penetration may be challenging for penetration enhancing formulations, short application times with incomplete rinse-off, or significant metabolism. While there were a few exceptions, the experiment-to-prediction ratios mostly fell within a factor of 10 of the ideal value of 1. It can be concluded therefore, that the approach is fit-for-purpose when used as a screening and prioritisation tool.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".