Next Generation Risk Assessment approaches for advanced nanomaterials: Current status and future perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This manuscript discusses the challenges of applying New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) for safe by design and regulatory risk assessment of advanced nanomaterials (AdNMs). The authors propose a framework for Next Generation Risk Assessment of AdNMs involving NAMs that is aligned to the conventional risk assessment paradigm. This framework is exposure-driven, endpoint-specific, makes best use of pre-existing information, and can be implemented in tiers of increasing specificity and complexity of the adopted NAMs. The tiered structure of the approach, which effectively combines the use of existing data with targeted testing will allow safety to be assessed cost-effectively and as far as possible with even more limited use of vertebrates. The regulatory readiness of state-of-the-art emerging NAMs is assessed in terms of transparency, Reliability, Accessibility, Applicability, Relevance and Completeness, and their appropriateness for AdNMs is discussed in relation to each step of the risk assessment paradigm along with providing perspectives for future developments in the respective scientific and regulatory areas.
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 | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".