MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unlocking the Power of Transcriptomic Biomarkers in Qualitative and Quantitative Genotoxicity Assessment of Chemicals

2024· article· en· W4392165879 on OpenAlexafffund
Anouck Thienpont, Eunnara Cho, Andrew Williams, Matthew J. Meier, Carole L. Yauk, Vera Rogiers, Tamara Vanhaecke, Birgit Mertens

Bibliographic record

VenueChemical Research in Toxicology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeVrije Universiteit BrusselFonds Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekCanada Research ChairsNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaVlaamse regeringCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsGenotoxicityComputational biologyTranscriptomeChemistryBiologyData scienceComputer scienceGeneticsToxicityGene expressionGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide To modernize genotoxicity assessment and reduce reliance on experimental animals, new approach methodologies (NAMs) that provide human-relevant dose–response data are needed. Two transcriptomic biomarkers, GENOMARK and TGx-DDI, have shown a high classification accuracy for genotoxicity. As these biomarkers were extracted from different training sets, we investigated whether combining the two biomarkers in a human-derived metabolically competent cell line (i.e., HepaRG) provides complementary information for the classification of genotoxic hazard identification and potency ranking. First, the applicability of GENOMARK to TempO-Seq, a high-throughput transcriptomic technology, was evaluated. HepaRG cells were exposed for 72 h to increasing concentrations of 10 chemicals (i.e., eight known in vivo genotoxicants and two in vivo nongenotoxicants). Gene expression data were generated using the TempO-Seq technology. We found a prediction performance of 100%, confirming the applicability of GENOMARK to TempO-Seq. Classification using TGx-DDI was then compared to GENOMARK. For the chemicals identified as genotoxic, benchmark concentration modeling was conducted to perform potency ranking. The high concordance observed for both hazard classification and potency ranking by GENOMARK and TGx-DDI highlights the value of integrating these NAMs in a weight of evidence evaluation of genotoxicity.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.092
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChemical Research in ToxicologySame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207