Estimating provisional margins of exposure for data-poor chemicals using high-throughput computational methods

Systematic Approaches for the Encoding of Chemical Groups: A Case Study

Regulatory authorities aim to organize substances into groups to facilitate prioritization within hazard and risk assessment processes. Often, such chemical groupings are not explicitly defined by structural rules or physicochemical property information. This is largely due to how these groupings are developed, namely, a manual expert curation process, which in turn makes updating and refining groupings, as new substances are evaluated, a practical challenge. Herein, machine learning methods were leveraged to build models that could preliminarily assign substances to predefined groups. A set of 86 groupings containing 2,184 substances as published on the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA) website were mapped to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Distributed Toxicity Structure Database (DSSTox) content to extract chemical and structural information. Substances were represented using Morgan fingerprints, and two machine learning approaches were used to classify test substances into 56 groups containing at least 10 substances with a structural representation in the data set: k-nearest neighbor (kNN) and random forest (RF), that led to mean 5-fold cross-validation test accuracies (average F1 scores) of 0.781 and 0.853, respectively. With a 9% improvement, the RF classifier was significantly more accurate than KNN (p-value = 0.001). The approach offers promise as a means of the initial profiling of new substances into predefined groups to facilitate prioritization efforts and streamline the assessment of new substances when earlier groupings are available. The algorithm to fit and use these models has been made available in the accompanying repository, thereby enabling both use of the produced models and refitting of these models, as new groupings become available by regulatory authorities or industry.

Evaluating scientific confidence in the concordance of in vitro and in vivo protective points of departure

To fulfil the promise of reducing reliance on mammalian in vivo laboratory animal studies, new approach methods (NAMs) need to provide a confident basis for regulatory decision-making. However, previous attempts to develop in vitro NAMs-based points of departure (PODs) have yielded mixed results, with PODs from U.S. EPA's ToxCast, for instance, appearing more conservative (protective) but poorly correlated with traditional in vivo studies. Here, we aimed to address this discordance by reducing the heterogeneity of in vivo PODs, accounting for species differences, and enhancing the biological relevance of in vitro PODs. However, we only found improved in vitro-to-in vivo concordance when combining the use of Bayesian model averaging-based benchmark dose modeling for in vivo PODs, allometric scaling for interspecies adjustments, and human-relevant in vitro assays with multiple induced pluripotent stem cell-derived models. Moreover, the available sample size was only 15 chemicals, and the resulting level of concordance was only fair, with correlation coefficients <0.5 and prediction intervals spanning several orders of magnitude. Overall, while this study suggests several ways to enhance concordance and thereby increase scientific confidence in vitro NAMs-based PODs, it also highlights challenges in their predictive accuracy and precision for use in regulatory decision making.