Paving the way for application of next generation risk assessment to safety decision-making for cosmetic ingredients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Next generation risk assessment (NGRA) is an exposure-led, hypothesis-driven approach that has the potential to support animal-free safety decision-making. However, significant effort is needed to develop and test the in vitro and in silico (computational) approaches that underpin NGRA to enable confident application in a regulatory context. A workshop was held in Montreal in 2019 to discuss where effort needs to be focussed and to agree on the steps needed to ensure safety decisions made on cosmetic ingredients are robust and protective. Workshop participants explored whether NGRA for cosmetic ingredients can be protective of human health, and reviewed examples of NGRA for cosmetic ingredients. From the limited examples available, it is clear that NGRA is still in its infancy, and further case studies are needed to determine whether safety decisions are sufficiently protective and not overly conservative. Seven areas were identified to help progress application of NGRA, including further investments in case studies that elaborate on scenarios frequently encountered by industry and regulators, including those where a 'high risk' conclusion would be expected. These will provide confidence that the tools and approaches can reliably discern differing levels of risk. Furthermore, frameworks to guide performance and reporting should be developed.
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 | 0.116 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".