Recent Advances in Probabilistic Dose–Response Assessment to Inform Risk‐Based Decision Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paradoxically, risk assessments for the majority of chemicals lack any quantitative characterization as to the likelihood, incidence, or severity of the risks involved. The relatively few cases where "risk" is truly quantified are based on either epidemiologic data or extrapolation of experimental animal cancer bioassay data. The paucity of chemicals and health endpoints for which such data are available severely limits the ability of decisionmakers to account for the impacts of chemical exposures on human health. The development by the World Health Organization International Programme on Chemical Safety (WHO/IPCS) in 2014 of a comprehensive framework for probabilistic dose-response assessment has opened the door to a myriad of potential advances to better support decision making. Building on the pioneering work of Evans, Hattis, and Slob from the 1990s, the WHO/IPCS framework provides both a firm conceptual foundation as well as practical implementation tools to simultaneously assess uncertainty, variability, and severity of effect as a function of exposure. Moreover, such approaches do not depend on the availability of epidemiologic data, nor are they limited to cancer endpoints. Recent work has demonstrated the broad feasibility of such approaches in order to estimate the functional relationship between exposure level and the incidence or severity of health effects. While challenges remain, such as better characterization of the relationship between endpoints observed in experimental animal or in vitro studies and human health effects, the WHO/IPCS framework provides a strong basis for expanding the breadth of risk management decision contexts supported by chemical risk assessment.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".