Comparison of Points of Departure for Health Risk Assessment Based on High-Throughput Screening Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background: The National Research Council’s vision for toxicity testing in the 21st century anticipates that points of departure (PODs) for establishing human exposure guidelines in future risk assessments will increasingly be based on in vitro high-throughput screening (HTS) data. Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare different PODs for HTS data. Specifically, benchmark doses (BMDs) were compared to the signal-to-noise crossover dose (SNCD), which has been suggested as the lowest dose applicable as a POD. Methods: Hill models were fit to > 10,000 in vitro concentration–response curves, obtained for > 1,400 chemicals tested as part of the U.S. Tox21 Phase I effort. BMDs and lower confidence limits on the BMDs (BMDLs) corresponding to extra effects (i.e., changes in response relative to the maximum response) of 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% were estimated for > 8,000 curves, along with BMDs and BMDLs corresponding to additional effects (i.e., absolute changes in response) of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and 25%. The SNCD, defined as the dose where the ratio between the additional effect and the difference between the upper and lower bounds of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on absolute effect was 1, 0.67, and 0.5, respectively, was also calculated and compared with the BMDLs. Results: The BMDL40, BMDL25, and BMDL18, defined in terms of extra effect, corresponded to the SNCD1.0, SNCD0.67, and SNCD0.5, respectively, at the median. Similarly, the BMDL25, BMDL17, and BMDL13, defined in terms of additional effect, corresponded to the SNCD1.0, SNCD0.67, and SNCD0.5, respectively, at the median. Conclusions: The SNCD may serve as a reference level that guides the determination of standardized BMDs for risk assessment based on HTS concentration–response data. The SNCD may also have application as a POD for low-dose extrapolation. Citation: Sand S, Parham F, Portier CJ, Tice RR, Krewski D. 2017. Comparison of points of departure for health risk assessment based on high-throughput screening data. Environ Health Perspect 125:623–633; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP408
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 | 0.050 | 0.114 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".