Radiation Adverse Outcome pathways (AOPs): examining priority questions from an international horizon-style exercise
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) Development Programme is being explored in the radiation field, as an overarching framework to identify and prioritize research needs that best support strengthening of radiation risk assessment and risk management strategies. To advance the use of AOPs, an international horizon-style exercise (HSE) was initiated through the Radiation/Chemical AOP Joint Topical Group (JTG) formed by the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) High-Level Group on Low Dose Research (HLG-LDR) under the auspices of the Committee on Radiological Protection and Public Health (CRPPH). The intent of the HSE was to identify key research questions for consideration in AOP development that would help to reduce uncertainties in estimating the health risks following exposures to low dose and low dose-rate ionizing radiation. The HSE was conducted in several phases involving the solicitation of relevant questions, a collaborative review of open-ended candidate questions and an elimination exercise that led to the selection of 25 highest priority questions for the stated purpose. These questions were further ranked by over 100 respondents through an international survey. This final set of questions was judged to provide insights into how the OECD's AOP approach can be put into practice to meet the needs of hazard and risk assessors, regulators, and researchers. This paper examines the 25 priority questions in the context of hazard/risk assessment framework for ionizing radiation. CONCLUSION: By addressing the 25 priority questions, it is anticipated that constructed AOPs will have a high level of specificity, making them valuable tools for simplifying and prioritizing complex biological processes for use in developing revised radiation hazard and risk assessment strategies.
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 | 0.256 | 0.329 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".