Innovation in regulatory approaches for endocrine disrupting chemicals: The journey to risk assessment modernization in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, regulatory authorities grapple with the challenge of assessing the hazards and risks to human and ecosystem health that may result from exposure to chemicals that disrupt the normal functioning of endocrine systems. Rapidly increasing number of chemicals in commerce, coupled with the reliance on traditional, costly animal experiments for hazard characterization - often with limited sensitivity to many important mechanisms of endocrine disruption -, presents ongoing challenges for chemical regulation. The consequence is a limited number of chemicals for which there is sufficient data to assess if there is endocrine toxicity and hence few chemicals with thorough hazard characterization. To address this challenge, regulatory assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) is benefiting from a revolution in toxicology that focuses on New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) to more rapidly identify, prioritize, and assess the potential risks from exposure to chemicals using novel, more efficient, and more mechanistically driven methodologies and tools. Incorporated into Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) and guided by conceptual frameworks such as Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOPs), emerging approaches focus initially on molecular interactions between the test chemical and potentially vulnerable biological systems instead of the need for animal toxicity data. These new toxicity testing methods can be complemented with in silico and computational toxicology approaches, including those that predict chemical kinetics. Coupled with exposure data, these will inform risk-based decision-making approaches. Canada is part of a global network collaborating on building confidence in the use of NAMs for regulatory assessment of EDCs. Herein, we review the current approaches to EDC regulation globally (mainly from the perspective of human health), and provide a perspective on how the advances for regulatory testing and assessment can be applied and discuss the promises and challenges faced in adopting these novel approaches to minimize risks due to EDC exposure in Canada, and our world.
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 | 0.028 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".