Survey of tumorigenic sensitivity in 6-month rasH2-Tg mice studies compared with 2-year rodent assays
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pharmacokinetic endpoint of a 25-fold increase in human exposure is one of the specified criteria for high-dose selection for 2-year carcinogenicity studies in rodents according to ICH S1C(R2). However, this criterion is not universally accepted for 6-month carcinogenicity tests in rasH2-Tg mice. To evaluate an appropriate multiple for rasH2-Tg mice, we evaluated data for 53 compounds across five categories of rasH2-Tg mouse-positive [(1) genotoxic and (2) non-genotoxic] carcinogens and rasH2-Tg mouse-negative [(3) non-genotoxic carcinogens with clear or uncertain human relevance; (4) non-genotoxic rodent-specific carcinogens; and (5) non-carcinogens], and surveyed their tumorigenic activities and high doses in rasH2-Tg mice and 2-year rodent models. Our survey indicated that area under the curve (AUC) margins (AMs) or body surface area-adjusted dose ratios (DRs) of tumorigenesis in rasH2-Tg mice to the maximum recommended human dose (MRHD) were 0.05- to 5.2-fold in 6 category (1) compounds with small differences between models and 0.2- to 47-fold in 7 category (2) including three 2-year rat study-negative compounds. Among all 53 compounds, including 40 compounds of the rasH2-Tg mouse-negative category (3), (4), and (5), no histopathologic risk factors for rodent neoplasia were induced only at doses above 50-fold AM or DR in rasH2-Tg mice except for two compounds, which induced hyperplasia and had no relationship with the tumors observed in the rasH2-Tg mouse or 2-year rodent studies. From the results of these surveys, we confirmed that exceeding a high dose level of 50-fold AM in rasH2-Tg mouse carcinogenicity studies does not appear to be of value.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".