MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4250848154 · doi:10.1002/bdrb.20063

Two generation reproduction study of ethylbenzene by inhalation in Crl‐CD rats

2005· article· en· W4250848154 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

affAu moins un auteur déclare une institution canadienne dans l'instantané OpenAlex épinglé.

Notice bibliographique

RevueBirth Defects Research Part B Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueEffects and risks of endocrine disrupting chemicals
Établissements canadiensUniversité de Montréal
Organismes subventionnairesAmerican Chemistry CouncilU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mots-clésEthylbenzeneReproductionInhalationToxicologyEnvironmental chemistryChemistryAndrologyBiologyMedicineAnatomyOrganic chemistryEcology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract BACKGROUND: This study was conducted to evaluate the potential adverse effects of ethylbenzene (EB) on reproductive capability from whole‐body inhalation exposure of F 0 and F 1 parental animals. METHODS: Four groups of Crl:CD(SD)IGS BR rats (30/sex/group for F 0 and 25/sex/group for F 1 ) were exposed to 0, 25, 100, and 500 ppm EB for 6 hr/day for at least 70 consecutive days before mating. Inhalation exposure for the F 0 and F 1 females continued throughout mating, gestation through gestation day (GD) 20, and lactation days (LD) 5–21. On LD 1–4, females received EB in corn oil via oral gavage at dose levels of 26, 90, and 342 mg/kg/day (divided into three equal doses, approximately 2 hr apart), as calculated from a physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model to provide similar maternal blood area‐under‐concentration (AUC) as provided by inhalation. Pups were weaned on postnatal day (PND) 21 and exposure of the F 1 generation started on PND 22. Estimates of internal exposure were determined by measuring EB concentrations in blood collected from F 1 dams (4/group) and their culled pups 1 hr after the last gavage dose on PND 4. On PND 22, blood was collected from these same F 1 dams and their weanlings for EB analysis 1 hr after a 6‐hr inhalation exposure. The remainder of the F 2 generation was not directly exposed. RESULTS: EB exposure did not affect survival or clinical observations. Male rats in the 500 ppm group in both generations gained weight more slowly than the controls. There were no indications of adverse effects on reproductive performance in either generation. Male and female mating and fertility indices, pre‐coital intervals, spermatogenic endpoints, ovarian follicle counts, reproductive organ weights, lengths of estrous cycle and gestation, live litter size, pup weights, developmental landmarks, and postnatal survival were unaffected. No adverse exposure‐related macroscopic pathology was noted at any level. CONCLUSIONS: Increased liver weights were found in the animals exposed to 500 ppm. F 1 maternal whole blood EB concentrations of 0.49, 3.51, or 18.28 mg/L were found 1 hr after administration of a composite oral dose of 26, 90, or 342 mg/kg/day, respectively, but no detectable EB was found in blood samples of their F 2 PND 4 culled pups. F 1 maternal mean whole blood EB levels 1 hr after a 6‐hr inhalation exposure on postpartum day (PPD) 22 was 0.11 mg/L (25 ppm), 0.56 mg/L (100 ppm), and 11 mg/L (500 ppm). For the offspring exposed with their dams on PND 22, F 2 pup blood EB concentrations ranged from 0.017–0.039 mg/L (25 ppm), 0.165–0.465 mg/L (100 ppm), and 8.82–15.74 mg/L (500 ppm). Because decreased weight gain in the 500 ppm males was transient and no histopathological changes were associated with the increased liver weights in the 500 ppm male and female groups, these changes were not considered adverse. Therefore, for parental systemic toxicity, 100 ppm was considered a NOEL and 500 ppm a NOAEL in this study. The 500 ppm exposure concentration was considered a NOAEL for F 0 and F 1 reproductive toxicity and offspring developmental endpoints. Birth Defects Res Part B 2006. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Expérimental (laboratoire) · Signal consensuel: Expérimental (laboratoire)
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,048
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,606

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,053
Tête enseignante GPT0,398
Écart entre enseignants0,346 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle