Bioinformatic workflows for deriving transcriptomic points of departure: current status, data gaps, and research priorities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a pressing need to increase the efficiency and reliability of toxicological safety assessment for protecting human health and the environment. Although conventional toxicology tests rely on measuring apical changes in vertebrate models, there is increasing interest in the use of molecular information from animal and in vitro studies to inform safety assessment. One promising and pragmatic application of molecular information involves the derivation of transcriptomic points of departure (tPODs). Transcriptomic analyses provide a snapshot of global molecular changes that reflect cellular responses to stressors and progression toward disease. A tPOD identifies the dose level below which a concerted change in gene expression is not expected in a biological system in response to a chemical. A common approach to derive such a tPOD consists of modeling the dose-response behavior for each gene independently and then aggregating the gene-level data into a single tPOD. Although different implementations of this approach are possible, as discussed in this manuscript, research strongly supports the overall idea that reference doses produced using tPODs are health protective. An advantage of this approach is that tPODs can be generated in shorter term studies (e.g. days) compared with apical endpoints from conventional tests (e.g. 90-d subchronic rodent tests). Moreover, research strongly supports the idea that reference doses produced using tPODs are health protective. Given the potential application of tPODs in regulatory toxicology testing, rigorous and reproducible wet and dry laboratory methodologies for their derivation are required. This review summarizes the current state of the science regarding the study design and bioinformatics workflows for tPOD derivation. We identify standards of practice and sources of variability in tPOD generation, data gaps, and areas of uncertainty. We provide recommendations for research to address barriers and promote adoption in regulatory 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 | 0.018 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.009 |
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".