MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2415350667

Refinements in the care and use of animals in toxicology studies-regulation, validation, and progress.

2003· article· en· W2415350667 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia V. Turner, Kathleen L. Smiler, Maureen Hargaden, Michael A Koch

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsSheridan College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimal testingHealth careRisk analysis (engineering)Good laboratory practiceMedicineEngineering ethicsComputer scienceBiologyEngineeringPathologyPolitical scienceEcology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the past decade, important advances have been made in the humane care and use of laboratory animals used in toxicology studies, and there is strong international interest by the pharmaceutical sector in continuing with this progress. Because of the potential influence on human health, safety studies are highly regulated, and implementing refinements in laboratory animal care and use may require an initial validation study to demonstrate a lack of effect on study outcome. This paper provides an overview of issues surrounding implementation of animal care refinements in toxicology laboratory settings, including regulatory constraints, conducting validation studies, current progress in refinements, and areas for future consideration.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.295
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.103 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207