In Vitro Screening of 21 Bisphenol A Replacement Alternatives: Compared with Bisphenol A, the Majority of Alternatives Are More Cytotoxic and Dysregulate More Genes in Avian Hepatocytes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An avian in vitro screening approach was used to determine the effects of 21 bisphenol A (BPA) alternatives. Cytotoxicity and dysregulation of genes associated with estrogen response and other toxicologically relevant pathways evoked by these alternatives were compared with BPA. Most of the BPA alternatives (15/21) were equally or more cytotoxic than BPA in chicken embryonic hepatocytes; variability in cell viability was associated with chemical structure and the log octanol–water partition coefficient (logP) values. A negative linear relationship (r 2 = 0.745; p = 0.49–07; n = 18) was observed between logP and the log median lethal concentration (logLC50) values. The least cytotoxic BPA alternatives elicited the greatest gene dysregulation and, overall, most of the alternatives altered more genes than BPA (measured with a custom polymerase chain reaction array). This overall approach shows promise for use as a screen for hazard-based prioritization of BPA replacement alternatives and to ideally identify those that may be less harmful and/or require additional toxicity testing. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:2024–2031. © 2021 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry © 2021 SETAC. Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".