Development of a framework for risk assessment of dietary carcinogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there are a number of guidance documents and frameworks for evaluation of carcinogenicity, none of the current methods fully reflects the state of the science. Common limitations include the absence of dose-response assessment and not considering the impact of differing exposure patterns (e.g., intermittent, high peaks vs. lower, continuous exposures). To address these issues, we have developed a framework for risk assessment of dietary carcinogens. This framework includes an enhanced approach for weight of evidence (WOE) evaluation for genetic toxicology data, with a focus on evaluating studies based on the most recent testing guidance to determine whether a chemical is a mutagen. Included alongside our framework is a discussion of resources for evaluating tissue dose and the temporal pattern of internal dose, taking into account the chemical's toxicokinetics. The framework then integrates the mode of action (MOA) and associated dose metric category with the exposure data to identify the appropriate approach(es) to low-dose extrapolation and level of concern associated with the exposure scenario. This framework provides risk managers with additional flexibility in risk management and risk communication options, beyond the binary choice of linear low-dose extrapolation vs. application of uncertainty factors.
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 | 0.034 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".