Utility of In Vitro Bioactivity as a Lower Bound Estimate of In Vivo Adverse Effect Levels and in Risk-Based Prioritization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Use of high-throughput, in vitro bioactivity data in setting a point-of-departure (POD) has the potential to accelerate the pace of human health safety evaluation by informing screening-level assessments. The primary objective of this work was to compare PODs based on high-throughput predictions of bioactivity, exposure predictions, and traditional hazard information for 448 chemicals. PODs derived from new approach methodologies (NAMs) were obtained for this comparison using the 50th (PODNAM, 50) and the 95th (PODNAM, 95) percentile credible interval estimates for the steady-state plasma concentration used in in vitro to in vivo extrapolation of administered equivalent doses. Of the 448 substances, 89% had a PODNAM, 95 that was less than the traditional POD (PODtraditional) value. For the 48 substances for which PODtraditional < PODNAM, 95, the PODNAM and PODtraditional were typically within a factor of 10 of each other, and there was an enrichment of chemical structural features associated with organophosphate and carbamate insecticides. When PODtraditional < PODNAM, 95, it did not appear to result from an enrichment of PODtraditional based on a particular study type (eg, developmental, reproductive, and chronic studies). Bioactivity:exposure ratios, useful for identification of substances with potential priority, demonstrated that high-throughput exposure predictions were greater than the PODNAM, 95 for 11 substances. When compared with threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) values, the PODNAM, 95 was greater than the corresponding TTC value 90% of the time. This work demonstrates the feasibility, and continuing challenges, of using in vitro bioactivity as a protective estimate of POD in screening-level assessments via a case study.
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 | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".