Alternative Testing Strategies for Nanomaterials: State of the Science and Considerations for Risk Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rapid growth of the nanotechnology industry has warranted equal progress in the nanotoxicology and risk assessment fields. In vivo models have traditionally been used to determine human and environmental risk for chemicals; however, the use of these tests has limitations, and there are global appeals to develop reliable alternatives to animal testing. Many have investigated the use of alternative (nonanimal) testing methods and strategies have quickly developed and resulted in the generation of large toxicological data sets for numerous nanomaterials (NMs). Due to the novel physicochemical properties of NMs that are related to surface characteristics, the approach toward toxicity test development has distinct considerations from traditional chemicals, bringing new requirements for adapting these approaches for NMs. The methodical development of strategies that combine multiple alternative tests can be useful for predictive NM risk assessment and help screening-level decision making. This article provides an overview of the main developments in alternative methods and strategies for reducing uncertainty in NM risk assessment, including advantages and disadvantages of in vitro, ex vivo, and in silico methods, and examples of existing comprehensive strategies. In addition, knowledge gaps are identified toward improvements for experimental and strategy design, specifically highlighting the need to represent realistic exposure scenarios and to consider NM-specific concerns such as characterization, assay interferences, and standardization. Overall, this article aims to improve the reliability and utility of alternative testing methods and strategies for risk assessment of manufactured NMs.
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 | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| 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".