Exploring rabbit as a nonrodent species for general toxicology studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To avoid adverse events in humans, toxicity studies in nonclinical species have been the foundation of safety evaluation in the pharmaceutical industry. However, it is recognized that working with animals in research is a privilege, and conscientious use should always respect the 3Rs: replacement, reduction, and refinement. In the wake of the shortages in routine nonrodent species and considering that nonanimal methods are not yet sufficiently mature, the value of the rabbit as a nonrodent species is worth exploring. Historically used in vaccine, cosmetic, and medical device testing, the rabbit is seldom used today as a second species in pharmaceutical development, except for embryo-fetal development studies, ophthalmic therapeutics, some medical devices and implants, and vaccines. Although several factors affect the decision of species selection, including pharmacological relevance, pharmacokinetics, and ADME considerations, there are no perfect animal models. In this forum article, we bring together experts from veterinary medicine, industry, contract research organizations, and government to explore the pros and cons, residual concerns, and data gaps regarding the use of the rabbit for general toxicity testing.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".