A methodology for developing key events to advance nanomaterial-relevant adverse outcome pathways to inform risk assessment
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
Significant advances have been made in the development of Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs) over the last decade, mainly focused on the toxicity mechanisms of chemicals. These AOPs, although relevant to manufactured nanomaterials (MNs), do not currently capture the reported roles of size-associated properties of MNs on toxicity. Moreover, some AOs of relevance to airborne exposures to MNs such as lung inflammation and fibrosis shown in animal studies may not be targeted in routine regulatory decision making. The primary objective of the present study was to establish an approach to advance the development of AOPs of relevance to MNs using existing, publicly available, nanotoxicology literature. A systematic methodology was created for curating, organizing and applying the available literature for identifying key events (KEs). Using a case study approach, the study applied the available literature to build the biological plausibility for 'tissue injury', a KE of regulatory relevance to MNs. The results of the analysis reveal the various endpoints, assays and specific biological markers used for assessing and reporting tissue injury. The study elaborates on the limitations and opportunities of the current nanotoxicology literature and provides recommendations for the future reporting of nanotoxicology results that will expedite not only the development of AOPs for MNs but also aid in application of existing data for decision making.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it