MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964249678 · doi:10.1080/15287390590956560

Biochemical Markers of Neurotoxicity in Wildlife and Human Populations: Considerations for Method Development

2005· article· en· W1964249678 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher J. Stamler, Niladri Basu, Hing Man Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPrimate Behavior and Ecology
Canadian institutionsSte. Anne's HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinkNeurochemicalNeurotoxicityHuman brainBiologyReceptorChemistryInternal medicineEndocrinologyBiochemistryMedicineNeuroscienceToxicityEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Disruption of neurochemical parameters in blood and brain tissues can be used as early biomarkers of neurotoxicity in human and wildlife epidemiological studies. To investigate the feasibility of biomarker measurements in field samples obtained from remote locations, tissue storage limits were determined with human blood and mink cortex tissue using efficient and cost-effective microplate assays. Results show that isolated blood platelets and plasma can be stored at 4°C for 4 wk before measurement of monoamine oxidase (MAO) and cholinesterase (ChE) activities, while human lymphocytes can be stored at 4°C for up to 2 d before muscarinic acetylcholine (mACh) receptor binding analysis. Blood cells stored frozen resulted in decreased MAO activity and mACh receptor function. These data suggest that mink brain tissue obtained from field samples can be stored at various temperatures without affecting dopamine (D2) and mACh receptor densities; however, MAO and ChE activities were most stable in samples stored in a −20°C domestic freezer or at 4°C. Multiple freeze/thaw cycles alter mACh and D2 receptors and MAO activity in mink cortex samples and should therefore be minimized. In conclusion, these neurochemical biomarkers can efficiently be measured in large human and wildlife neurotoxicity studies, provided proper storage conditions are maintained. This study was financially supported by the Collaborative Mercury Research Network (COMERN) and the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada. C. J. Stamler and N. Basu are both recipients of NSERC postgraduate fellowships. We also thank Mary Gamberg (Gamberg Consulting, Whitehorse, Yukon Territory) and Dr. Steven J. Bursian (Michigan State University, East Lansing) for kind donation of mink tissues. Assistance by Donna Leggee, Leah Tivoli, Kovana M. Loua, and Stephanie Bailey is greatly appreciated.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.031
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.326 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental HealthSame topicPrimate Behavior and EcologyFrench-language works237,207