MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4292908964 · doi:10.1385/1592598404

Molecular Toxicology Protocols

2004· book· en· W4292908964 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Phouthone Keohavong, Stephen G. Grant

Bibliographic record

VenueHumana Press eBooks · 2004
Typebook
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of GeneticsNational Cancer InstituteDepartment of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of PittsburghMarkey Cancer Center, University of KentuckyNovartis PharmaUppsala UniversitetUniversität HeidelbergCancer Research Institute, Kanazawa UniversityOxford Brookes UniversityOregon State UniversityKanazawa UniversityUniversity of PittsburghLouisiana State UniversityWake Forest UniversityLoyola University ChicagoLawrence Livermore National LaboratoryJawaharlal Nehru UniversityKarolinska InstitutetMemorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer CenterCancer Research Institute
KeywordsComputational biologyToxicologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

New state-of-the-art molecular techniques promise to transform the field of genetic toxicology by making it possible to directly detect genotoxic exposures and their consequences in humans, to identify the agent(s) involved, and to clinically manage the exposed population. In Molecular Toxicology Protocols, researchers from prominent universities and cancer centers around the world describe in detail their best techniques for analyzing genotoxic exposure and the resulting biological effects, including intermediate biomarkers such as DNA and chromosomal damage, mutations in reporter and oncogenes, and the earliest possible detection of cancer. The authors emphasize analytical methods specifically developed for use in human populations and in cancer patients, or in other in vivo systems such as transgenic mice.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.682
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHumana Press eBooksSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207