MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database of Substances Eliciting Negative Results in the Ames Test: Construction of the Database

2020· review· en· W3027911235 on OpenAlexaff
Federica Madia, David Kirkland, Takeshi Morita, Paul A. White, David Asturiol, Raffaella Corvi

Bibliographic record

VenueMutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental Mutagenesis · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmes testGenotoxicityDatabaseCarcinogenToxicologyComputational biologyComputer scienceChemistryBiologyGeneticsToxicityBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The bacterial reverse mutation test (Ames test) is the most commonly used genotoxicity test; it is a primary component of the chemical safety assessment data required by regulatory agencies worldwide. Within the current accepted in vitro genotoxicity test battery, it is considered capable of revealing DNA reactivity, and identifying substances that can produce gene mutations via different mechanisms. The previously published consolidated EURL ECVAM Genotoxicity and Carcinogenicity Database, which includes substances that elicited a positive response in the Ames test, constitutes a collection of data that serves as a reference for a number of regulatory activities in the area of genotoxicity testing. Consequently, we considered it important to expand the database to include substances that fail to elicit a positive response in the Ames test, i.e., Ames negative substances. Here, we describe a curated collection of 211 Ames negative substances, with a summary of complementary data available for other genotoxicity endpoints in vitro and in vivo, plus available carcinogenicity data. A descriptive analysis of the data is presented. This includes a representation of the chemical space formed by the Ames-negative database with respect to other substances (e.g. REACH registered substances, approved drugs, pesticides, etc.) and a description of the organic functional groups found in the database. We also provide some suggestions on further analyses that could be made.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.038

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0220.015
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0040.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.009

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMutation Research/Genetic Toxicology and Environmental MutagenesisSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207