A Framework that Considers the Impacts of Time, Cost, and Uncertainty in the Determination of the Cost Effectiveness of Toxicity‐Testing Methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regulatory agencies are required to evaluate the impacts of thousands of chemicals. Toxicological tests currently used in such evaluations are time-consuming and resource intensive; however, advances in toxicology and related fields are providing new testing methodologies that reduce the cost and time required for testing. The selection of a preferred methodology is challenging because the new methodologies vary in duration and cost, and the data they generate vary in the level of uncertainty. This article presents a framework for performing cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) of toxicity tests that account for cost, duration, and uncertainty. This is achieved by using an output metric-the cost per correct regulatory decision-that reflects the three elements. The framework is demonstrated in two example CEAs, one for a simple decision of risk acceptability and a second, more complex decision, involving the selection of regulatory actions. Each example CEA evaluates five hypothetical toxicity-testing methodologies which differ with respect to cost, time, and uncertainty. The results of the examples indicate that either a fivefold reduction in cost or duration can be a larger driver of the selection of an optimal toxicity-testing methodology than a fivefold reduction in uncertainty. Uncertainty becomes of similar importance to cost and duration when decisionmakers are required to make more complex decisions that require the determination of small differences in risk predictions. The framework presented in this article may provide a useful basis for the identification of cost-effective methods for toxicity testing of large numbers of chemicals.
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 | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".