Development of Empirical Bioavailability Models for Metals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, there has been renewed interest in the development and use of empirical models to predict metal bioavailability and derive protective values for aquatic life. However, there is considerable variability in the conceptual and statistical approaches with which these models have been developed. In the present study, we review case studies of empirical bioavailability model development, evaluating and making recommendations on key issues, including species selection, identifying toxicity-modifying factors (TMFs) and the appropriate environmental range of these factors, use of existing toxicity data sets and experimental design for developing new data sets, statistical considerations in deriving species-specific and pooled bioavailability models, and normalization of species sensitivity distributions using these models. We recommend that TMFs be identified from a combination of available chemical speciation and toxicity data and statistical evaluations of their relationships to toxicity. Experimental designs for new toxicity data must be sufficiently robust to detect nonlinear responses to TMFs and should encompass a large fraction (e.g., 90%) of the TMF range. Model development should involve a rigorous use of both visual plotting and statistical techniques to evaluate data fit. When data allow, we recommend using a simple linear model structure and developing pooled models rather than retaining multiple taxa-specific models. We conclude that empirical bioavailability models often have similar predictive capabilities compared to mechanistic models and can provide a relatively simple, transparent tool for predicting the effects of TMFs on metal bioavailability to achieve desired environmental management goals. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;39:85-100. © 2019 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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".