Part II: Quantitative Evaluation of Choices Used in Setting Noncancer Chronic Human Health Reference Values Across Organizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Environmental and public health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), develop human health reference values (HHRV) that set “safe” levels of exposure to noncarcinogens. Here, we systematically analyze chronic HHRVs from four organizations: USEPA, Health Canada, RIVM (the Netherlands), and the U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. This study is an extension of our earlier work and both closely examines the choices made in setting HHRVs and presents a quantitative method for identifying the primary factors influencing HHRV agreement or disagreement.(1) We evaluated 171 organizational comparisons, developing a quantitative method for identifying the factors to which HHRV agreement (that is, when both organizations considering the same data set the identical HHRV values) is most sensitive. To conduct this analysis, a Bayesian belief network was built using expert judgment, including the specific science policy choices analysis made in the context of setting an HHRV. Based on a sensitivity of findings analysis, HHRV agreement is most sensitive to the point of departure value, followed by the total uncertainty factor (UF), critical study, critical effect, animal model, and point of departure approach. This analysis also considered the specific impacts of individual UFs, with the database UF and the subchronic‐to‐chronic UF being identified as primary factors impacting the total UF differences observed across organizations. The sensitivity of findings analysis results were strengthened and confirmed by frequency analyses evaluating which choices most often disagreed when the HHRV and the total UF disagreed.
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 | 0.240 | 0.468 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".