A framework for the use of single-chemical transcriptomics data in predicting the hazards associated with complex mixtures of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The assumption of additivity applied in the risk assessment of environmental mixtures containing carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) was investigated using transcriptomics. MutaTMMouse were gavaged for 28 days with three doses of eight individual PAHs, two defined mixtures of PAHs, or coal tar, an environmentally ubiquitous complex mixture of PAHs. Microarrays were used to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in lung tissue collected 3 days post-exposure. Cancer-related pathways perturbed by the individual or mixtures of PAHs were identified, and dose-response modeling of the DEGs was conducted to calculate gene/pathway benchmark doses (BMDs). Individual PAH-induced pathway perturbations (the median gene expression changes for all genes in a pathway relative to controls) and pathway BMDs were applied to models of additivity [i.e., concentration addition (CA), generalized concentration addition (GCA), and independent action (IA)] to generate predicted pathway-specific dose-response curves for each PAH mixture. The predicted and observed pathway dose-response curves were compared to assess the sensitivity of different additivity models. Transcriptomics-based additivity calculation showed that IA accurately predicted the pathway perturbations induced by all mixtures of PAHs. CA did not support the additivity assumption for the defined mixtures; however, GCA improved the CA predictions. Moreover, pathway BMDs derived for coal tar were comparable to BMDs derived from previously published coal tar-induced mouse lung tumor incidence data. These results suggest that in the absence of tumor incidence data, individual chemical-induced transcriptomics changes associated with cancer can be used to investigate the assumption of additivity and to predict the carcinogenic potential of a mixture.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".