MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386461539 · doi:10.3389/ftox.2023.1284932

Editorial: In vitro toxicogenomics (TGx) in hazard and risk assessment

2023· editorial· en· W4386461539 on OpenAlexaff
Marc A. Beal, Logan J. Everett

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Toxicology · 2023
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal testing and alternatives
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToxicogenomicsHazardHazard analysisEngineeringBiologyEcologyReliability engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro toxicogenomics (TGx) in hazard and risk assessment Toxicogenomics (TGx) involves the application of transcriptomics to study how cells and organisms respond to environmental and chemical exposures by measuring changes in gene expression.TGx technologies have proven to be valuable tools in human health and environmental risk assessment.Specifically, TGx data provides a wealth of mechanistic insight to support a weight-of-evidence approach when establishing links between exposure and adverse outcomes.Furthermore, short-term in vivo studies using animals as models have supported the derivation of transcriptomic points-of-departure (PODs), i.e., the dose levels expected to lead to chronic adverse outcomes, that serve as surrogates of PODs measured using traditional apical toxicological endpoints in longer-term studies (Thomas et al., 2013;Zhou et al., 2017;Gwinn et al., 2020;Johnson et al., 2020).However, given the concerted international efforts to reduce the use of animals in toxicity testing, it is anticipated that animal studies will become less frequent over time (Kavlock et al., 2018).Thus, there is a pressing need to build confidence in non-animal TGx approaches and promote alternative testing strategies that take advantage of higher throughput in vitro systems.This shift towards New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), including novel in vitro TGx methods, presents an opportunity to accelerate the pace of chemical risk assessment and establish a next-generation risk assessment strategy to protect humans and the environment from emerging chemicals of concern.This Research Topic presents a collection of articles highlighting recent in vitro TGx advancements to establish the utility of both TGx methods and data for hazard and risk assessment.High-throughput transcriptomic biomarkers can predict specific adverse outcomes and establish PODs at which key molecular events occur following exposures.In the studies by Buick et al. and Fortin et al., a previously developed transcriptomic biomarker referred to as TGx-DDI (Li et al., 2015; 2017) was used to classify chemicals tested in human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells as either DNA damage-inducing (DDI) or non-DDI.Buick et al. investigated three anti-infective agents that had conflicting results in previous reports: nitrofurantoin (NIT), metronidazole (MTZ), and novobiocin (NOV).The TGx-DDI biomarker suggested that NIT and MTZ are unlikely to be DDI in human cells, while NOV was classified as DDI consistent with its ability to inhibit DNA topoisomerase II.Similarly, Fortin et al. used TGx-DDI alongside other genotoxicity NAMs in an in vitro only

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0130.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.029

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.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.329 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in ToxicologySame topicAnimal testing and alternativesFrench-language works237,207