Improving confidence in (Q)SAR predictions under Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan – a chemical space approach<sup>$</sup>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the key challenges of Canada’s Chemicals Management Plan (CMP) is assessing chemicals with limited/no empirical hazard data for their risk to human health. In some instances, these chemicals have not been tested broadly for their toxicological potency; as such, limited information exists on their potential to induce human health effects following exposure. Although (quantitative) structure activity relationship ((Q)SAR) models are able to generate predictions to address data gaps for certain toxicological endpoints, the confidence in predictions also needs to be addressed. One way to address this issue is to apply a chemical space approach. This approach uses international toxicological databases, for example, those available in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) QSAR Toolbox. The approach,assesses a model’s ability to predict the potential hazards of chemicals that have limited hazard data that require assessment under the CMP when compared to a larger, data-rich chemical space that is structurally similar to chemicals of interest. This evaluation of a model’s predictive ability makes (Q)SAR analysis more transparent and increases confidence in the application of these predictions in a risk-assessment context. Using this approach, predictions for such chemicals obtained from four (Q)SAR models were successfully classified into high, medium and low confidence levels to better inform their use in decision-making.
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 | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.008 |
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".