Using in vitro data to derive acceptable exposure levels: A case study on PBDE developmental neurotoxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current acceptable chemical exposure levels (e.g., tolerable daily intake) are mainly based on animal experiments, which are costly, time-consuming, considered non-ethical by many, and may poorly predict adverse outcomes in humans. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a method using human in vitro data and biological modeling to calculate an acceptable exposure level through a case study on 2,2',4,4'-tetrabromodiphenyl ether (BDE-47) developmental neurotoxicity (DNT). METHODS: ) in cells. We subsequently used a pharmacokinetic model of gestation and lactation to estimate administered equivalent doses leading to four different metrics of child brain concentration (i.e., average prenatal, average postnatal, average overall, and maximum concentration) equal to the point of departure. The administered equivalent doses were translated into tolerable daily intakes using uncertainty factors. Finally, we calculated biomonitoring equivalents for maternal serum and compared them to published epidemiological studies of DNT. RESULTS: of 164 μg/kg of cells for BDE-47 induced alteration of differentiation in neural progenitor cells. We estimated administered equivalent doses of 0.925-3.767 μg/kg/day in mothers, and tolerable daily intakes of 0.009-0.038 μg/kg/day (composite uncertainty factor: 100). The lowest derived biomonitoring equivalent was 19.75 ng/g lipids, which was consistent with reported median (0.9-23 ng/g lipids) and geometric mean (7.02-26.9 ng/g lipids) maternal serum concentrations from epidemiological studies. CONCLUSION: This case study supports using in vitro data and biological modeling as a viable alternative to animal testing to derive acceptable exposure levels.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".