International regulatory uses of acute systemic toxicity data and integration of new approach methodologies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chemical regulatory authorities around the world require systemic toxicity data from acute exposures via the oral, dermal, and inhalation routes for human health risk assessment. To identify opportunities for regulatory uses of non-animal replacements for these tests, we reviewed acute systemic toxicity testing requirements for jurisdictions that participate in the International Cooperation on Alternative Test Methods (ICATM): Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and the USA. The chemical sectors included in our review of each jurisdiction were cosmetics, consumer products, industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and pesticides. We found acute systemic toxicity data were most often required for hazard assessment, classification, and labeling, and to a lesser extent quantitative risk assessment. Where animal methods were required, animal reduction methods were typically recommended. For many jurisdictions and chemical sectors, non-animal alternatives are not accepted, but several jurisdictions provide guidance to support the use of test waivers to reduce animal use for specific applications. An understanding of international regulatory requirements for acute systemic toxicity testing will inform ICATM's strategy for the development, acceptance, and implementation of non-animal alternatives to assess the health hazards and risks associated with acute toxicity.
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 | 0.019 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".