Extended Virtual Screening Strategies To Link Antiandrogenic Activities and Detected Organic Contaminants in Soils
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A tiered screening strategy based on extensive virtual fractionation and elucidation was developed to simplify identification of toxicants in complex environments. In tier1-virtual fractionation, multivariate analysis (MVA) was set up as an alternative of physical fractionation. In tier2-virtual structure elucidation, in-house quantitative structure-retention relationship (QSRR) models and toxicity simulation methods were developed to simplify nontarget identification. The efficiency of the tiered virtual strategy was tentatively verified by soil samples from a chemical park contaminated by antiandrogenic substances. Eight out of 18 sites were detected as antiandrogenic, while none of them exhibited androgenic agonist potencies. Sixty-seven peaks were selected for further identification by MVA, among which over 90% were verified in androgenic fractions in traditional effect-directed analysis (EDA). With 579 tentative structures generated by in silico fragmentation, 74% were elucidated by QSRR and 65% were elucidated by in silico toxicity prediction. All prior peaks were identified at different confidence levels with over 40% of the identified peaks above confidence level 2b, which has been increased over 40% with less than half of the time spent compared to traditional EDA. Such a combination of tiered virtual screening methods provides more efficient and rapid identifications of key toxicants at contaminated sites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".