Toxicogenomics scoring system: TGSS, a novel integrated risk assessment model for chemical carcinogenicity prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Given the increasing exposure of humans to environmental chemicals and the limitations of conventional toxicity test, there is an urgent need to develop next-generation risk assessment methods. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to establish a novel computational system named Toxicogenomics Scoring System (TGSS) to predict the carcinogenicity of chemicals coupling chemical-gene interactions with multiple cancer transcriptomic datasets. METHODS: Chemical-related gene signatures were derived from chemical-gene interaction data from the Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD). For each cancer type in TCGA, genes were ranked by their effects on tumorigenesis, which is based on the differential expression between tumor and normal samples. Next, we developed carcinogenicity scores (C-scores) using pre-ranked GSEA to quantify the correlation between chemical-related gene signatures and ranked gene lists. Then we established TGSS by systematically evaluating the C-scores in multiple chemical-tumor pairs. Furthermore, we examined the performance of our approach by ROC curves or prognostic analyses in TCGA and multiple independent cancer cohorts. RESULTS: ). ROC curves analysis indicated that C-score could distinguish "high-risk chemicals" from the other compounds (AUC = 0.67) with a specificity and sensitivity of 0.86 and 0.57. The results of survival analysis were also in line with the assessed carcinogenicity in TGSS for the chemicals in Group 1. Finally, consistent results were further validated in independent cancer cohorts. CONCLUSION: TGSS highlighted the great potential of integrating chemical-gene interactions with gene-cancer relationships to predict the carcinogenic risk of chemicals, which would be valuable for systems toxicology.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".