Advancing Risk Analysis for Nanoscale Materials: Report from an International Workshop on the Role of Alternative Testing Strategies for Advancement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Society for Risk Analysis (SRA) has a history of bringing thought leadership to topics of emerging risk. In September 2014, the SRA Emerging Nanoscale Materials Specialty Group convened an international workshop to examine the use of alternative testing strategies (ATS) for manufactured nanomaterials (NM) from a risk analysis perspective. Experts in NM environmental health and safety, human health, ecotoxicology, regulatory compliance, risk analysis, and ATS evaluated and discussed the state of the science for in vitro and other alternatives to traditional toxicology testing for NM. Based on this review, experts recommended immediate and near-term actions that would advance ATS use in NM risk assessment. Three focal areas-human health, ecological health, and exposure considerations-shaped deliberations about information needs, priorities, and the next steps required to increase confidence in and use of ATS in NM risk assessment. The deliberations revealed that ATS are now being used for screening, and that, in the near term, ATS could be developed for use in read-across or categorization decision making within certain regulatory frameworks. Participants recognized that leadership is required from within the scientific community to address basic challenges, including standardizing materials, protocols, techniques and reporting, and designing experiments relevant to real-world conditions, as well as coordination and sharing of large-scale collaborations and data. Experts agreed that it will be critical to include experimental parameters that can support the development of adverse outcome pathways. Numerous other insightful ideas for investment in ATS emerged throughout the discussions and are further highlighted in this article.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".