Comparisons of PNEC derivation logic flows under example regulatory schemes and implications for ecoTTC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Derivation of Predicted No Effect Concentrations (PNECs) for aquatic systems is the primary deterministic form of hazard extrapolation used in environmental risk assessment. Depending on the data availability, different regulatory jurisdictions apply application factors (AFs) to the most sensitive measured endpoint to derive the PNEC for a chemical. To assess differences in estimated PNEC values, two PNEC determination methodologies were applied to a curated public database using the EnviroTox Platform (www.EnviroToxdatabase.org). PNECs were derived for 3647 compounds using derivation procedures based on example US EPA and a modified European Union chemical registration procedure to allow for comparisons. Ranked probability distributions of PNEC values were developed and 5th percentile values were calculated for the entire dataset and scenarios where full acute or full chronic data sets were available. The lowest PNEC values indicated categorization based on chemical attributes and modes of action would lead to improved extrapolations. Full acute or chronic datasets gave measurably higher 5th percentile PNEC values. Algae were under-represented in available ecotoxicity data but drove PNECs disproportionately. Including algal inhibition studies will be important in understanding chemical hazards. The PNEC derivation logic flows are embedded in the EnviroTox Platform providing transparent and consistent PNEC derivations and PNEC distribution calculations.
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 | 0.046 | 0.084 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".