Empirical analysis of BMD metrics in genetic toxicology part II:<i>in vivo</i>potency comparisons to promote reductions in the use of experimental animals for genetic toxicity assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genotoxicity tests have traditionally been used only for hazard identification, with qualitative dichotomous groupings being used to identify compounds that have the capacity to induce mutations and/or cytogenetic alterations. However, there is an increasing interest in employing quantitative analysis of in vivo dose-response data to derive point of departure (PoD) metrics that can be used to establish human exposure limits or margins of exposure (MOEs), thereby supporting human health risk assessments and regulatory decisions. This work is an extension of our companion article on in vitro dose-response analyses and outlines how the combined benchmark dose (BMD) approach across included covariates can be used to improve the analyses and interpretation of in vivo genetic toxicity dose-response data. Using the BMD-covariate approach, we show that empirical comparisons of micronucleus frequency dose-response data across multiple studies justifies dataset merging, with subsequent analyses improving the precision of BMD estimates and permitting attendant potency ranking of seven clastogens. Similarly, empirical comparisons of Pig-a mutant phenotype frequency data collected in males and females justified dataset merging across sex. This permitted more effective scrutiny regarding the effect of post-exposure sampling time on the mutagenicity of N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea observed in reticulocytes and erythrocytes in the Pig-a assay. The BMD-covariate approach revealed tissue-specific differences in the induction of lacZ transgene mutations in Muta™Mouse specimens exposed to benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), with the results permitting the formulation of mechanistic hypotheses regarding the observed potency ranking. Lastly, we illustrate how historical dose-response data for assessments that examined numerous doses (i.e. induced lacZ mutant frequency (MF) across 10 doses of BaP) can be used to improve the precision of BMDs derived from datasets with far fewer doses (i.e. lacZ MF for 3 doses of dibenz[a,h]anthracene). Collectively, the presented examples illustrate how innovative use of the BMD approach can permit refinement of the use of in vivo data; improving the efficacy of experimental animal use in genetic toxicology without sacrificing PoD precision.
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 | 0.032 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".