Consensus Modeling of Median Chemical Intake for the U.S. Population Based on Predictions of Exposure Pathways
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prioritizing the potential risk posed to human health by chemicals requires tools that can estimate exposure from limited information. In this study, chemical structure and physicochemical properties were used to predict the probability that a chemical might be associated with any of four exposure pathways leading from sources–consumer (near-field), dietary, far-field industrial, and far-field pesticide–to the general population. The balanced accuracies of these source-based exposure pathway models range from 73 to 81%, with the error rate for identifying positive chemicals ranging from 17 to 36%. We then used exposure pathways to organize predictions from 13 different exposure models as well as other predictors of human intake rates. We created a consensus, meta-model using the Systematic Empirical Evaluation of Models framework in which the predictors of exposure were combined by pathway and weighted according to predictive ability for chemical intake rates inferred from human biomonitoring data for 114 chemicals. The consensus model yields an R2 of ∼0.8. We extrapolate to predict relevant pathway(s), median intake rate, and credible interval for 479 926 chemicals, mostly with minimal exposure information. This approach identifies 1880 chemicals for which the median population intake rates may exceed 0.1 mg/kg bodyweight/day, while there is 95% confidence that the median intake rate is below 1 μg/kg BW/day for 474572 compounds.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".