MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205582908 · doi:10.1002/ieam.4583

A weight of evidence approach for bioaccumulation assessment

2022· article· en· W4205582908 on OpenAlexaff
Jon A. Arnot, Liisa Toose, James M. Armitage, Michelle R. Embry, Alessandro Sangion, Lauren Hughes

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsASL Environmental Sciences (Canada)ARC Resources (Canada)The Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean Chemical Industry CouncilAmerican Chemistry Council
KeywordsBioaccumulationBiomagnificationBioconcentrationEnvironmental scienceBiochemical engineeringEnvironmental chemistryComputer scienceChemistryEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioaccumulation assessments conducted by regulatory agencies worldwide use a variety of methods, types of data, metrics, and categorization criteria. Lines of evidence (LoE) for bioaccumulation assessment can include bioaccumulation metrics such as in vivo bioconcentration factor (BCF) and biomagnification factor (BMF) data measured from standardized laboratory experiments, and field (monitoring) data such as BMFs, bioaccumulation factors (BAFs), and trophic magnification factors (TMFs). In silico predictions from mass-balance models and quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSARs) and a combination of in vitro biotransformation rates and in vitro-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) models can also be used. The myriad bioaccumulation metrics and categorization criteria and underlying uncertainty in measured or modeled data can make decision-making challenging. A weight of evidence (WoE) approach is recommended to address uncertainty. The Bioaccumulation Assessment Tool (BAT) guides a user through the process of collecting and generating various LoE required for assessing the bioaccumulation of neutral and ionizable organic chemicals in aquatic (water-respiring) and air-breathing organisms. The BAT includes data evaluation templates (DETs) to critically evaluate the reliability of the LoE used in the assessment. The DETs were developed from standardized testing guidance. The approach used in the BAT is consistent with OECD and SETAC WoE principles and facilitates the implementation of chemical policy objectives in chemical assessment and management. The recommended methods are also iterative and tiered, providing pragmatic methods to reduce unnecessary animal testing. General concepts of the BAT are presented and case study applications of the tool for hexachlorobenzene (HCB) and β-hexachlorocyclohexane (β-HCH) are demonstrated. The BAT provides a consistent and transparent WoE framework to address uncertainty in bioaccumulation assessment and is envisaged to evolve with scientific and regulatory developments. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2023;19:1235-1253. © 2022 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.711
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and ManagementSame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207