MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2478717493 · doi:10.1039/9781849732093

In Silico Toxicology

2010· book-chapter· en· W2478717493 on OpenAlex
Ovanes Mekenyan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIn silicoComputer scienceHuman healthRisk analysis (engineering)Quality (philosophy)Data scienceData miningToxicologyComputational biologyBiologyBusinessMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Silico methods to predict toxicity have become increasingly important recently, particularly in light of European legislation such as REACH and the Cosmetics Regulation. They are also being used extensively worldwide e.g. in the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia. In assessing the risk that a chemical may pose to human health or to the environment, focus is now being directed towards exploitation of in silico methods to replace in vivo or in vitro techniques. A prediction of potential toxicity requires several stages: 1) Collation and organisation of data available for the compound, or if this is not available, information for related compounds. 2) An assessment of the quality of the data. 3) Generation of additional information about the compound using computational techniques at various levels of complexity - calculation of physico-chemical properties, 2-D, 3-D / MO descriptors and specific receptor modelling / interaction. 4) Use of an appropriate strategy to predict toxicity - ie a statistically valid method which makes best use of all available information (mechanism of action, activity for related compounds, extrapolation across species and endpoints, likely exposure scenario amounts over time etc). 5) Consideration then needs to be given to how this information is used in the real world ie use of expert systems / tools as relevant to assessors (if sufficiently different to previous) - weight of evidence approaches. 6) Finally evidence should be presented from case studies within this area. No other publication brings together information on all of these areas in one book and this publication is unique in that it provides a logical progression through every one of these key stages and defines the use of computational approaches to predict the environmental toxicity and human health effects of organic chemicals. The volume is aimed at the developers and users of in silico toxicology and provides an analysis of all aspects required for in silico prediction of toxicology, including data collation, quality assessment and computational approaches. The contributions from recognised leaders in each of these areas include evidence of the use and applicability of approaches using real world case studies concerning both environmental and human health effects. The book provides a very useful single source reference for people working in this area including academics, professionals, under- and post-graduate students as well as Governmental Regulatory Scientists involved in chemical risk assessment and REACH.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Quick stats

Citations47
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Drug Discovery MethodsFrench-language works237,207