Adverse outcome pathway networks II: Network analytics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Toxicological responses to stressors are more complex than the simple one-biological-perturbation to one-adverse-outcome model portrayed by individual adverse outcome pathways (AOPs). Consequently, the AOP framework was designed to facilitate de facto development of AOP networks that can aid in the understanding and prediction of pleiotropic and interactive effects more common to environmentally realistic, complex exposure scenarios. The present study introduces nascent concepts related to the qualitative analysis of AOP networks. First, graph theory-based approaches for identifying important topological features are illustrated using 2 example AOP networks derived from existing AOP descriptions. Second, considerations for identifying the most significant path(s) through an AOP network from either a biological or risk assessment perspective are described. Finally, approaches for identifying interactions among AOPs that may result in additive, synergistic, or antagonistic responses (or previously undefined emergent patterns of response) are introduced. Along with a companion article (part I), these concepts set the stage for the development of tools and case studies that will facilitate more rigorous analysis of AOP networks, and the utility of AOP network-based predictions, for use in research and regulatory decision-making. The present study addresses one of the major themes identified through a Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry Horizon Scanning effort focused on advancing the AOP framework. Environ Toxicol Chem 2018;37:1734-1748. © 2018 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC. This article is a US government work and, as such, is in the public domain in the United States of America.
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 | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".