A framework for <i>in vitro</i> systems toxicology assessment of e-liquids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS), of which electronic cigarettes (e-cigs) are the most recognized prototype, have been quickly gaining ground on conventional cigarettes because they are perceived as less harmful. Research assessing the potential effects of ENDS exposure in humans is currently limited and inconclusive. New products are emerging with numerous variations in designs and performance parameters within and across brands. Acknowledging these challenges, we present here a proposed framework for an in vitro systems toxicology assessment of e-liquids and their aerosols, intended to complement the battery of assays for standard toxicity assessments. The proposed framework utilizes high-throughput toxicity assessments of e-liquids and their aerosols, in which the device-to-device variability is minimized, and a systems-level investigation of the cellular mechanisms of toxicity is an integral part. An analytical chemistry investigation is also included as a part of the framework to provide accurate and reliable chemistry data solidifying the toxicological assessment. In its simplest form, the framework comprises of three main layers: (1) high-throughput toxicity screening of e-liquids using primary human cell culture systems; (2) toxicity-related mechanistic assessment of selected e-liquids, and (3) toxicity-related mechanistic assessment of their aerosols using organotypic air-liquid interface airway culture systems. A systems toxicology assessment approach is leveraged to enable in-depth analyses of the toxicity-related cellular mechanisms of e-liquids and their aerosols. We present example use cases to demonstrate the suitability of the framework for a robust in vitro assessment of e-liquids and their aerosols.
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 | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".