A methodology for developing key events to advance nanomaterial-relevant adverse outcome pathways to inform risk assessment
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.
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 | 0.066 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.032 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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".