The Key Characteristics of Carcinogens: Relationship to the Hallmarks of Cancer, Relevant Biomarkers, and Assays to Measure Them
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The key characteristics (KC) of human carcinogens provide a uniform approach to evaluating mechanistic evidence in cancer hazard identification. Refinements to the approach were requested by organizations and individuals applying the KCs. We assembled an expert committee with knowledge of carcinogenesis and experience in applying the KCs in cancer hazard identification. We leveraged this expertise and examined the literature to more clearly describe each KC, identify current and emerging assays and in vivo biomarkers that can be used to measure them, and make recommendations for future assay development. We found that the KCs are clearly distinct from the Hallmarks of Cancer, that interrelationships among the KCs can be leveraged to strengthen the KC approach (and an understanding of environmental carcinogenesis), and that the KC approach is applicable to the systematic evaluation of a broad range of potential cancer hazards in vivo and in vitro. We identified gaps in coverage of the KCs by current assays. Future efforts should expand the breadth, specificity, and sensitivity of validated assays and biomarkers that can measure the 10 KCs. Refinement of the KC approach will enhance and accelerate carcinogen identification, a first step in cancer prevention. See all articles in this CEBP Focus section, “Environmental Carcinogenesis: Pathways to Prevention.”
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 | 0.029 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".