An international validation study of the IL-2 Luc assay for evaluating the potential immunotoxic effects of chemicals on T cells and a proposal for reference data for immunotoxic chemicals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the immunotoxic effects of xenobiotics, we have established the Multi-ImmunoTox assay, in which three stable reporter cell lines are used to evaluate the effects of chemicals on the IL-2, IFN-γ, IL-1β and IL-8 promoters. Here, we report the official validation study of the IL-2 luciferase assay (IL-2 Luc assay). In the Phase I study that evaluated five coded chemicals in three sets of experiments, the average within-laboratory reproducibility was 86.7%. In the Phase II study, 20 coded chemicals were evaluated at multiple laboratories. In the combined results of the Phase I and II studies, the between-laboratory reproducibility was 80.0%. These results suggested that the IL-2 Luc assay was reproducible both between and within laboratories. To determine the predictivity, we collected immunotoxicological information and constructed the reference data by classifying the chemical into immunotoxic compounds targeting T cells or others according to previously reported criteria. When compared with the reference data, the average predictivity of the Phase I and II studies was 75.0%, while that of additional 60 chemicals examined by the lead laboratory was 82.5%. Although the IL-2 Luc assay alone is not sufficient to predict immunotoxicity, it will be a useful tool when combined with other immune tests.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 it