Do Similar Structures Have Similar No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) Values? Exploring Chemoinformatics Approaches for Estimating NOAEL Bounds and Uncertainties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
strategies, for example, quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models, to predict NOAEL values is inherently problematic. Whereas QSAR models for well-defined toxicity endpoints such as Ames mutagenicity or skin sensitization can be developed from mechanistic knowledge of molecular initiating events and adverse outcome pathways, QSAR is not appropriate for predicting a NOAEL value, a concentration at which "no effect" is observed. This paper presents a chemoinformatics approach and explores how it can be further refined through the incorporation of toxicity endpoint-specific information to estimate confidence bounds for the NOAEL of a target substance, given experimentally determined NOAEL values for one or more suitable analogues. With a sufficiently large NOAEL database, we analyze how a difference in NOAEL values for pairs of structures depends on their pairwise similarity, where similarity takes both structural features and physicochemical properties into account. The width of the estimate NOAEL confidence interval is proportional to the uncertainty. Using the new threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) database enriched with antimicrobials, examples are presented to illustrate how uncertainty decreases with increasing analogue quality and also how NOAEL bounds estimation can be significantly improved by filtering the full database to include only substances that are in structure categories relevant to the target and analogue.
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 | 0.009 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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 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".