Non‐Animal Strategies for Toxicity Assessment of Nanoscale Materials: Role of Adverse Outcome Pathways in the Selection of Endpoints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Faster, cheaper, sensitive, and mechanisms-based animal alternatives are needed to address the safety assessment needs of the growing number of nanomaterials (NM) and their sophisticated property variants. Specifically, strategies that help identify and prioritize alternative schemes involving individual test models, toxicity endpoints, and assays for the assessment of adverse outcomes, as well as strategies that enable validation and refinement of these schemes for the regulatory acceptance are needed. In this review, two strategies 1) the current nanotoxicology literature review and 2) the adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) framework, a systematic process that allows the assembly of available mechanistic information concerning a toxicological response in a simple modular format, are presented. The review highlights 1) the most frequently assessed and reported ad hoc in vivo and in vitro toxicity measurements in the literature, 2) various AOPs of relevance to inhalation toxicity of NM that are presently under development, and 3) their applicability in identifying key events of toxicity for targeted in vitro assay development. Finally, using an existing AOP for lung fibrosis, the specific combinations of cell types, exposure and test systems, and assays that are experimentally supported and thus, can be used for assessing NM-induced lung fibrosis, are proposed.
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 | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".