A high-level overview of the OECD AOP Development Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), through its Chemical Safety Programme, is delegated to ensure the safety of humans and wildlife from harmful toxicants. To support these needs, initiatives to increase the efficiency of hazard identification and risk management are under way. Amongst these, the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) approach integrates information on biological knowledge and test methodologies (both established and new) to support regulatory decision making. AOPs collate biological knowledge from different sources, assess lines of evidence through considerations of causality, and undergo rigorous peer-review before being subsequently endorsed by the OECD. It is envisioned that the OECD AOP Development Programme will transform the toxicity testing paradigm by leveraging the strengths of mechanistic and modeling based approaches and enhance the utility of high throughput screening assays. Since its launch, in 2012, the AOP Development Programme has matured with a greater number of AOPs endorsed, and the attraction of new scientific disciplines (e.g. the radiation field). Recently, a radiation and chemical (Rad/Chem) AOP Joint Topical Group has been formed by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency High-level Group on Low-dose Research (HLG-LDR) under the auspices of the Committee on Radiological Protection and Public Health (CRPPH). The topical group will work to evolve the development and use of the AOP framework in radiation research and regulation. As part of these efforts, the group will bring awareness and understanding on the program, as it has matured from the chemical perspective. In this context, this paper provides the radiation community with a high-level overview of the OECD AOP Development Programme, including examples of application using knowledge gleaned from the field of chemical toxicology, and their work toward regulatory implementation. CONCLUSION: Although the drivers for developing AOPs in chemical sector differ from that of the radiation field, the principles and transparency of the approach can benefit both scientific disciplines. By providing perspectives and an understanding of the evolution of the OECD AOP Development Programme including case examples and work toward quantitative AOP development, it may motivate the expansion and implementation of AOPs in the radiation field.
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 | 0.034 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.014 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.023 |
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".