An Overview of Testing Procedures and Approaches for Identifying Endocrine Disrupting Substances
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Concern over the potential effects of exposure to endocrine disrupting substances (EDS) has resulted in recommendations for the development of specific endocrine and reproductive tests for assessment and regulation of industrial chemicals and effluents. This document consolidates and summarizes the current approaches taken by international agencies and scientific organizations for testing and screening EDS in mammals and wildlife. The material has been gathered from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development meeting reports, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee and Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program reports, and summaries of various meetings prepared by Canadian and U.S. representatives. There are commonalties between programs of individual countries and the international scientific groups in which they participate. In general, these international scientific organizations have envisioned tiered groups of tests. The first tier is composed of less complex tests and short-term assays (acute exposures) that are very responsive to EDS (and have a low 'false-negative' rate). Higher tiers contain longer tests encompassing partial and full lifecycles of organisms with assessment of functional reproductive and developmental endpoints. Compounds are less expensively screened in the first tier, and move on to more complex and expensive higher-tier tests only if necessary. We document the proposed EDS tests in mammals and wildlife (birds, fish, amphibians and invertebrates) and overview the European Union's approach to EDS research, monitoring and risk assessment. We conclude with a summary of the main recommendations from Canada's interagency workshop to develop priorities and proposed actions for EDS.
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 | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
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".