Comprehensive interpretation of in vitro micronucleus test results for 292 chemicals: from hazard identification to risk assessment application
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Risk assessments are increasingly reliant on information from in vitro assays. The in vitro micronucleus test (MNvit) is a genotoxicity test that detects chromosomal abnormalities, including chromosome breakage (clastogenicity) and/or whole chromosome loss (aneugenicity). In this study, MNvit datasets for 292 chemicals, generated by the US EPA's ToxCast program, were evaluated using a decision tree-based pipeline for hazard identification. Chemicals were tested with 19 concentrations (n = 1) up to 200 µM, in the presence and absence of Aroclor 1254-induced rat liver S9. To identify clastogenic chemicals, %MN values at each concentration were compared to a distribution of batch-specific solvent controls; this was followed by cytotoxicity assessment and benchmark concentration (BMC) analyses. The approach classified 157 substances as positives, 25 as negatives, and 110 as inconclusive. Using the approach described in Bryce et al. (Environ Mol Mutagen 52:280-286, 2011), we identified 15 (5%) aneugens. IVIVE (in vitro to in vivo extrapolation) was employed to convert BMCs into administered equivalent doses (AEDs). Where possible, AEDs were compared to points of departure (PODs) for traditional genotoxicity endpoints; AEDs were generally lower than PODs based on in vivo endpoints. To facilitate interpretation of in vitro MN assay concentration-response data for risk assessment, exposure estimates were utilized to calculate bioactivity exposure ratio (BER) values. BERs for 50 clastogens and two aneugens had AEDs that approached exposure estimates (i.e., BER < 100); these chemicals might be considered priorities for additional testing. This work provides a framework for the use of high-throughput in vitro genotoxicity testing for priority setting and chemical risk assessment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".