Quantitative in vitro to in vivo extrapolation of genotoxicity data provides protective estimates of in vivo dose
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Genotoxicity assessment is a critical component in the development and evaluation of chemicals. Traditional genotoxicity assays (i.e., mutagenicity, clastogenicity, and aneugenicity) have been limited to dichotomous hazard classification, while other toxicity endpoints are assessed through quantitative determination of points-of-departures (PODs) for setting exposure limits. The more recent higher-throughput in vitro genotoxicity assays, many of which also provide mechanistic information, offer a powerful approach for determining defined PODs for potency ranking and risk assessment. In order to obtain relevant human dose context from the in vitro assays, in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) models are required to determine what dose would elicit a concentration in the body demonstrated to be genotoxic using in vitro assays. Previous work has demonstrated that application of IVIVE models to in vitro bioactivity data can provide PODs that are protective of human health, but there has been no evaluation of how these models perform with in vitro genotoxicity data. Thus, the Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee, under the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute, conducted a case study on 31 reference chemicals to evaluate the performance of IVIVE application to genotoxicity data. The results demonstrate that for most chemicals considered here (20/31), the PODs derived from in vitro data and IVIVE are health protective relative to in vivo PODs from animal studies. PODs were also protective by assay target: mutations (8/13 chemicals), micronuclei (9/12), and aneugenicity markers (4/4). It is envisioned that this novel testing strategy could enhance prioritization, rapid screening, and risk assessment of genotoxic chemicals.
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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".