Interpretation of In Vitro Concentration-Response Data for Risk Assessment and Regulatory Decision-making: Report from 2022 IWGT Quantitative Analysis Expert Working Group Meeting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative risk assessments of chemicals are routinely performed in rodents; however, there is growing recognition that non-animal approaches can be human-relevant alternatives. There is an urgent need to build confidence in non-animal alternatives given the international support to reduce the use of animals in toxicity testing where possible. In order for scientists and risk assessors to prepare for this paradigm shift in toxicity assessment, standardization and consensus on in vitro testing strategies and data interpretation will need to be established. To address this issue, an Expert Working Group (EWG) of the 8th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT) evaluated the utility of quantitative in vitro genotoxicity concentration-response data for risk assessment. The EWG first evaluated available in vitro methodologies and then examined the variability and maximal response of in vitro tests to estimate biologically relevant values for the critical effect sizes considered adverse or unacceptable. Next, the EWG reviewed the approaches and computational models employed to provide human-relevant dose context to in vitro data. Lastly, the EWG evaluated risk assessment applications for which in vitro data are ready for use and applications where further work is required. The EWG concluded that in vitro genotoxicity concentration-response data can be interpreted in a risk assessment context. However, prior to routine use in regulatory settings, further research will be required to address the remaining uncertainties and limitations.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".