Extracting and Benchmarking Emerging Adverse Outcome Pathway Knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the community of toxicological researchers, risk assessors, and risk managers adopt the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework for organizing toxicological knowledge, the number and diversity of AOPs in the online AOP knowledgebase (KB) continues to grow. To track and investigate this growth, AOPs in the AOP-KB were assembled into a single network. Summary measures on the current state of the AOP-KB and the overall connectivity and structural features of the resulting network were calculated. Our results show that networking the 187 user-defined AOPs currently described in the AOP-KB resulted in the emergence of 9405 unique, previously undescribed, linear AOPs (LAOPs). To investigate patterns in this emerging knowledge, we assembled the AOP-KB network retrospectively by sequentially adding each of the 187 user-defined AOPs and found that the creation of new AOPs that borrowed components from previously existing AOPs in the KB most described emergence of new LAOPs. However, the introduction of nonadjacent key event relationships and cycles among KEs also play key roles in emergent LAOPs. We provide examples of how to identify application-specific critical paths from this large number of LAOPs. Our research shows that the global AOP network may have considerable value as a source of emergent toxicological knowledge. These findings are not only helpful for understanding the nature of this emergent information but can also be used to manage and guide future development of the AOP-KB, and how to tailor this wealth of information to specific applications.
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 | 0.006 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".