Comprehensive computational analysis via Adverse Outcome Pathways and Aggregate Exposure Pathways in exploring synergistic effects from radon and tobacco smoke on lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality worldwide, with tobacco smoke and radon exposure being the primary risk factors. The interaction between these two factors has been described as sub-multiplicative, but a better understanding is needed of how they jointly contribute to lung carcinogenesis. In this context, a comprehensive analysis of current knowledge regarding the effects of radon and tobacco smoke on lung cancer was conducted using a computational approach. Information on this co-exposure was extracted and clustered from databases, particularly the literature, using the text mining tool AOP-helpFinder and other artificial intelligence (AI) resources. The collected information was then organized into Aggregate Exposure Pathway (AEP) and Adverse Outcome Pathways (AOP) models. AEPs and AOPs represent analytical concepts useful for assessing the potential risks associated with exposure to various stressors. AOPs provide a structured framework to organize knowledge of essential Key Events (KEs) from a Molecular Initiating Event (MIE) to an Adverse Outcome (AO) at an organism or population level, while AEPs model exposures from the initial source of the stressor to the internal exposure site within the target organism, situated upstream of the AOP. Combining these frameworks offered an integrated method for knowledge consolidation of radon and tobacco smoke, detailing the association from the environment to a mechanistic level, and highlighting specific differences between the two stressors in DNA damage, mutational profiles, and histological types. This approach also identified gaps in understanding joint exposure, particularly the lack of mechanistic studies on the precise role of certain KEs such as inflammation, as well as the need for studies that more closely replicate real-world exposure conditions. In conclusion, this study demonstrates the potential of AI and machine learning tools in developing alternative toxicological models. It highlights the complex interaction between radon and tobacco smoke and encourages collaboration among scientific communities to conduct future studies aiming to fully understand the mechanisms associated with this co-exposure.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".