Transcriptomic point of departure determination: a comparison of distribution-based and gene set-based approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A key step in assessing the potential human and environmental health risks of industrial and agricultural chemicals is to determine the toxicity point of departure (POD), which is the highest dose level that causes no adverse effect. Transcriptomic POD (tPOD) values have been suggested to accurately estimate toxicity POD values. One step in the most common approach for tPOD determination involves mapping genes to annotated gene sets, a process that might lead to substantial information loss particularly in species with poor gene annotation. Alternatively, methods that calculate tPOD values directly from the distribution of individual gene POD values omit this mapping step. Using rat transcriptome data for 79 molecules obtained from Open TG-GATEs (Toxicogenomics Project Genomics Assisted Toxicity Evaluation System), the hypothesis was tested that methods based on the distribution of all individual gene POD values will give a similar tPOD value to that obtained via the gene set-based method. Gene set-based tPOD values using four different gene set structures were compared to tPOD values from five different individual gene distribution methods. Results revealed a high tPOD concordance for all methods tested, especially for molecules with at least 300 dose-responsive probesets: for 90% of those molecules, the tPOD values from all methods were within 4-fold of each other. In addition, random gene sets based upon the structure of biological knowledge-derived gene sets produced tPOD values with a median absolute fold change of 1.3-1.4 when compared to the original biological knowledge-derived gene set counterparts, suggesting that little biological information is used in the gene set-based tPOD generation approach. These findings indicate using individual gene distributions to calculate a tPOD is a viable and parsimonious alternative to using gene sets. Importantly, individual gene distribution-based tPOD methods do not require knowledge of biological organization and can be applied to any species including those with poorly annotated gene sets.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".