From vision toward best practices: Evaluating in vitro transcriptomic points of departure for application in risk assessment using a uniform workflow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The growing number of chemicals in the current consumer and industrial markets presents a major challenge for regulatory programs faced with the need to assess the potential risks they pose to human and ecological health. The increasing demand for hazard and risk assessment of chemicals currently exceeds the capacity to produce the toxicity data necessary for regulatory decision making, and the applied data is commonly generated using traditional approaches with animal models that have limited context in terms of human relevance. This scenario provides the opportunity to implement novel, more efficient strategies for risk assessment purposes. This study aims to increase confidence in the implementation of new approach methods in a risk assessment context by using a parallel analysis to identify data gaps in current experimental designs, reveal the limitations of common approaches deriving transcriptomic points of departure, and demonstrate the strengths in using high-throughput transcriptomics (HTTr) to derive practical endpoints. A uniform workflow was applied across six curated gene expression datasets from concentration-response studies containing 117 diverse chemicals, three cell types, and a range of exposure durations, to determine tPODs based on gene expression profiles. After benchmark concentration modeling, a range of approaches was used to determine consistent and reliable tPODs. High-throughput toxicokinetics were employed to translate in vitro tPODs (µM) to human-relevant administered equivalent doses (AEDs, mg/kg-bw/day). The tPODs from most chemicals had AEDs that were lower (i.e., more conservative) than apical PODs in the US EPA CompTox chemical dashboard, suggesting in vitro tPODs would be protective of potential effects on human health. An assessment of multiple data points for single chemicals revealed that longer exposure duration and varied cell culture systems (e.g., 3D vs. 2D) lead to a decreased tPOD value that indicated increased chemical potency. Seven chemicals were flagged as outliers when comparing the ratio of tPOD to traditional POD, thus indicating they require further assessment to better understand their hazard potential. Our findings build confidence in the use of tPODs but also reveal data gaps that must be addressed prior to their adoption to support risk assessment applications.
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 | 0.062 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".