New investigations into the genotoxicity of cobalt compounds and their impact on overall assessment of genotoxic risk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The genotoxicity of cobalt metal and cobalt compounds has been widely studied. Several publications show induction of chromosomal aberrations, micronuclei or DNA damage in mammalian cells in vitro in the absence of S9. Mixed results were seen in gene mutation studies in bacteria and mammalian cells in vitro, and in chromosomal aberration or micronucleus assays in vivo. To resolve these inconsistencies, new studies were performed with soluble and poorly soluble cobalt compounds according to OECD-recommended protocols. Induction of chromosomal damage was confirmed in vitro, but data suggest this may be due to oxidative stress. No biologically significant mutagenic responses were obtained in bacteria, Tk(+/-) or Hprt mutation tests. Negative results were also obtained for chromosomal aberrations (in bone marrow and spermatogonia) and micronuclei at maximum tolerated doses in vivo. Poorly soluble cobalt compounds do not appear to be genotoxic. Soluble compounds do induce some DNA and chromosomal damage in vitro, probably due to reactive oxygen. The absence of chromosome damage in robust GLP studies in vivo suggests that effective protective processes are sufficient to prevent oxidative DNA damage in whole mammals. Overall, there is no evidence of genetic toxicity with relevance for humans of cobalt substances and cobalt metal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".