Translating Scientific Advances in the AOP Framework to Decision Making for Nanomaterials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of the current innovation in advanced materials is occurring at the nanoscale, specifically in manufactured nanomaterials (MNs). MNs display unique attributes and behaviors, and may be biologically and physically unique, making them valuable across a wide range of applications. However, as the number, diversity and complexity of MNs coming to market continue to grow, assessing their health and environmental risks with traditional animal testing approaches is too time- and cost-intensive to be practical, and is undesirable for ethical reasons. New approaches are needed that meet current requirements for regulatory risk assessment while reducing reliance on animal testing and enabling safer-by-design product development strategies to be implemented. The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework presents a sound model for the advancement of MN decision making. Yet, there are currently gaps in technical and policy aspects of AOPs that hinder the adoption and use for MN risk assessment and regulatory decision making. This review outlines the current status and next steps for the development and use of the AOP framework in decision making regarding the safety of MNs. Opportunities and challenges are identified concerning the advancement and adoption of AOPs as part of an integrated approach to testing and assessing (IATA) MNs, as are specific actions proposed to advance the development, use and acceptance of the AOP framework and associated testing strategies for MN risk assessment and decision making. The intention of this review is to reflect the views of a diversity of stakeholders including experts, researchers, policymakers, regulators, risk assessors and industry representatives on the current status, needs and requirements to facilitate the future use of AOPs in MN risk assessment. It incorporates the views and feedback of experts that participated in two workshops hosted as part of an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN) project titled, "Advancing AOP Development for Nanomaterial Risk Assessment and Categorization", as well as input from several EU-funded nanosafety research consortia.
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 | 0.102 | 0.102 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".