The challenge of the application of 'omics technologies in chemicals risk assessment: Background and outlook
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This survey by the European Centre for Ecotoxicology and Toxicology of Chemicals (ECETOC) highlights that 'omics technologies are generally not yet applied to meet standard information requirements during regulatory hazard assessment. While they are used within weight-of-evidence approaches to investigate substances' modes-of-action, consistent approaches for the generation, processing and interpretation of 'omics data are not applied. To date, no 'omics technology has been standardised or validated. Best practices for performing 'omics studies for regulatory purposes (e.g., microarrays for transcriptome profiling) remain to be established. Therefore, three frameworks for (i) establishing a Good-Laboratory Practice-like context for collecting, storing and curating 'omics data; (ii) 'omics data processing; and (iii) quantitative WoE approaches to interpret 'omics data have been developed, that are presented in this journal supplement. Application of the frameworks will enable between-study comparison of results, which will facilitate the regulatory applicability of 'omics data. The frameworks do not constitute prescriptive protocols precluding any other data analysis method, but provide a baseline for analysis that can be applied to all data allowing ready cross-comparison. Data analysis that does not follow the frameworks can be justified and the resulting data can be compared with the Framework-based common analysis output.
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 | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".