MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753248935 · doi:10.1093/toxsci/kfx186

From Classical Toxicology to Tox21: Some Critical Conceptual and Technological Advances in the Molecular Understanding of the Toxic Response Beginning From the Last Quarter of the 20th Century

2017· review· en· W2753248935 on OpenAlex

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

VenueToxicological Sciences · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicComputational Drug Discovery Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)ToxicologyBiologyHistoryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Toxicology has made steady advances over the last 60+ years in understanding the mechanisms of toxicity at an increasingly finer level of cellular organization. Traditionally, toxicological studies have used animal models. However, the general adoption of the principles of 3R (Replace, Reduce, Refine) provided the impetus for the development of in vitro models in toxicity testing. The present commentary is an attempt to briefly discuss the transformation in toxicology that began around 1980. Many genes important in cellular protection and metabolism of toxicants were cloned and characterized in the 80s, and gene expression studies became feasible, too. The development of transgenic and knockout mice provided valuable animal models to investigate the role of specific genes in producing toxic effects of chemicals or protecting the organism from the toxic effects of chemicals. Further developments in toxicology came from the incorporation of the tools of "omics" (genomics, proteomics, metabolomics, interactomics), epigenetics, systems biology, computational biology, and in vitro biology. Collectively, the advances in toxicology made during the last 30-40 years are expected to provide more innovative and efficient approaches to risk assessment. A goal of experimental toxicology going forward is to reduce animal use and yet be able to conduct appropriate risk assessments and make sound regulatory decisions using alternative methods of toxicity testing. In that respect, Tox21 has provided a big picture framework for the future. Currently, regulatory decisions involving drugs, biologics, food additives, and similar compounds still utilize data from animal testing and human clinical trials. In contrast, the prioritization of environmental chemicals for further study can be made using in vitro screening and computational tools.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Open science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.009
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.155
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.262 · 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