Adverse outcome pathway networks I: Development and applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on the results of a Horizon Scanning exercise sponsored by the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry that focused on advancing the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework, the development of guidance related to AOP network development was identified as a critical need. This not only included questions focusing directly on AOP networks, but also on related topics such as mixture toxicity assessment and the implementation of feedback loops within the AOP framework. A set of two articles has been developed to begin exploring these concepts. In the present article (part I), we consider the derivation of AOP networks in the context of how it differs from the development of individual AOPs. We then propose the use of filters and layers to tailor AOP networks to suit the needs of a given research question or application. We briefly introduce a number of analytical approaches that may be used to characterize the structure of AOP networks. These analytical concepts are further described in a dedicated, complementary article (part II). Finally, we present a number of case studies that illustrate concepts underlying the development, analysis, and application of AOP networks. The concepts described in the present article and in its companion article (which focuses on AOP network analytics) are intended to serve as a starting point for further development of the AOP network concept, and also to catalyze AOP network development and application by the different stakeholder communities. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:1723-1733. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".