Cell Painting and chemical structure read-across can complement each other for rat acute oral toxicity prediction in chemical early de-risking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Early de-risking decisions in the development of new chemical compounds, enable the identification of novel chemical candidates with improved safety profiles. In vivo studies are traditionally conducted in the early assessment of acute oral toxicity of crop protection products to avoid compounds which are considered “very acutely toxic”, with an in vivo Lethal Dose of 50% (LD50) ≤ 60 mg/kg bodyweight. Those studies are lengthy, costly, and raise ethical concerns, catalyzing the use of non-animal alternatives. The objective of our analysis was to assess the predictive efficacy of read-across approaches for acute oral toxicity in rats, comparing the use of chemical structure information, in vitro biological data derived from the Cell Painting profiling assay on U2OS cells or the combination of both. Our findings indicate that the classification of compounds as very acute oral toxic (LD50 ≤ 60 mg/kg) or not is possible using a read-across approach, with chemical structure information, morphological profiles, or a combination of both. When classifying compounds structurally similar to those in the training set, chemical structure was more predictive (balanced accuracy of 0.82). Conversely, when the compounds to be classified were structurally different from those in the training set, the morphological profiles were more predictive (balanced accuracy of 0.72). Combining the two models allowed for the classification of compounds structurally similar to those in the training set, to slightly improve the predictions (balanced accuracy of 0.85). Abstract Figure For Table of Contents Only
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".