Modeling U‐Shaped Exposure‐Response Relationships for Agents that Demonstrate Toxicity Due to Both Excess and Deficiency
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Essential elements such as copper and manganese may demonstrate U-shaped exposure-response relationships due to toxic responses occurring as a result of both excess and deficiency. Previous work on a copper toxicity database employed CatReg, a software program for categorical regression developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, to model copper excess and deficiency exposure-response relationships separately. This analysis involved the use of a severity scoring system to place diverse toxic responses on a common severity scale, thereby allowing their inclusion in the same CatReg model. In this article, we present methods for simultaneously fitting excess and deficiency data in the form of a single U-shaped exposure-response curve, the minimum of which occurs at the exposure level that minimizes the probability of an adverse outcome due to either excess or deficiency (or both). We also present a closed-form expression for the point at which the exposure-response curves for excess and deficiency cross, corresponding to the exposure level at which the risk of an adverse outcome due to excess is equal to that for deficiency. The application of these methods is illustrated using the same copper toxicity database noted above. The use of these methods permits the analysis of all available exposure-response data from multiple studies expressing multiple endpoints due to both excess and deficiency. The exposure level corresponding to the minimum of this U-shaped curve, and the confidence limits around this exposure level, may be useful in establishing an acceptable range of exposures that minimize the overall risk associated with the agent of interest.
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 | 0.031 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".