Developing and applying the adverse outcome pathway concept for understanding and predicting neurotoxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) concept has recently been proposed to support a paradigm shift in regulatory toxicology testing and risk assessment. This concept is similar to the Mode of Action (MOA), in that it describes a sequence of measurable key events triggered by a molecular initiating event in which a stressor interacts with a biological target. The resulting cascade of key events includes molecular, cellular, structural and functional changes in biological systems, resulting in a measurable adverse outcome. Thereby, an AOP ideally provides information relevant to chemical structure-activity relationships as a basis for predicting effects of structurally similar compounds. AOPs could potentially also form the basis for qualitative and quantitative predictive modeling of the human adverse outcome resulting from molecular initiating or other key events for which higher-throughput testing methods are available or can be developed. A variety of cellular and molecular processes are known to be critical for normal function of the central (CNS) and peripheral nervous systems (PNS). Because of the biological and functional complexity of the CNS and PNS, it has been challenging to establish causative links and quantitative relationships between key events that comprise the pathways leading from chemical exposure to an adverse outcome in the nervous system. Following introduction of the principles of MOA and AOPs, examples of potential or putative adverse outcome pathways specific for developmental or adult neurotoxicity are summarized and aspects of their assessment considered. Their possible application in developing mechanistically informed Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) is also discussed.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".