4.7 Article

A Machine Learning Model to Estimate Toxicokinetic Half-Lives of Per- and Polyfluoro-Alkyl Substances (PFAS) in Multiple Species

期刊

TOXICS
卷 11, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/toxics11020098

关键词

perfluoro-alkyl substances; PFAS; half-life; machine learning model; toxicokinetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this study, a random forest method was used to model the t(1/2) of PFAS across four species and eleven compounds. A classification model for t(1/2) was developed, and the t(1/2) of 3890 compounds was predicted. This model provides a basis for tentative extrapolation and prioritization.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a diverse group of man-made chemicals that are commonly found in body tissues. The toxicokinetics of most PFAS are currently uncharacterized, but long half-lives (t(1/2)) have been observed in some cases. Knowledge of chemical-specific t(1/2) is necessary for exposure reconstruction and extrapolation from toxicological studies. We used an ensemble machine learning method, random forest, to model the existing in vivo measured t(1/2) across four species (human, monkey, rat, mouse) and eleven PFAS. Mechanistically motivated descriptors were examined, including two types of surrogates for renal transporters: (1) physiological descriptors, including kidney geometry, for renal transporter expression and (2) structural similarity of defluorinated PFAS to endogenous chemicals for transporter affinity. We developed a classification model for t(1/2) (Bin 1: 2 months). The model had an accuracy of 86.1% in contrast to 32.2% for a y-randomized null model. A total of 3890 compounds were within domain of the model, and t(1/2) was predicted using the bin medians: 4.9 h, 2.2 days, 33 days, and 3.3 years. For human t(1/2), 56% of PFAS were classified in Bin 4, 7% were classified in Bin 3, and 37% were classified in Bin 2. This model synthesizes the limited available data to allow tentative extrapolation and prioritization.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据