MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414086421 · doi:10.3389/frai.2025.1632520

AI: the Apollo guidance computer of the Exposome moonshot

2025· article· en· W4414086421 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Fenna C.M. Sillé, Thomas Hartung

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Artificial Intelligence · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesMoonshot Research and Development ProgramCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsExposomeParallelsApolloDomain (mathematical analysis)Applications of artificial intelligenceHuman healthArtifact (error)Big dataSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Exposome-the totality of environmental exposures across a lifetime-remains one of the most significant challenges in understanding and preventing human disease. Translating its vast, heterogeneous data streams into actionable knowledge requires artificial intelligence (AI) integrated with human-relevant experimental systems. We propose a unifying vision in which Microphysiological Systems (MPS) and multi-omics platforms generate high-quality, context-specific data that iteratively calibrate AI models, enabling the creation of digital twins of organs, individuals, and ultimately populations. This "Exposome Moonshot" parallels the Apollo program in ambition, with MPS as the rocket, multi-omics as the lunar module, and AI as the guidance computer. Early applications demonstrate that deep learning can already outperform canonical animal tests for several toxicological endpoints, while reducing cost and time to decision. Realizing the full potential of Exposome intelligence will require expanding the applicability domain of models, implementing robust data security, and prioritizing transparent, interpretable algorithms. By linking predictive AI with experimental feedback, we can move toward a prevention-driven, personalized paradigm for human health and regulatory science.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.256 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Artificial IntelligenceSame topicHealth, Environment, Cognitive AgingFrench-language works237,207