MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978376018 · doi:10.1080/10937400601034571

Pesticide Exposures and Developmental Outcomes: The Epidemiological Evidence

2007· review· en· W1978376018 on OpenAlexaff
Mandy Weselak, Tye E. Arbuckle, Warren G. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHealth CanadaOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthPesticideEpidemiologyMedicineCausality (physics)Public healthToxicologyBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the advent of DDT as an insecticide in the late 1930s, billions of kilograms of pesticide active ingredient have been sold in North America and around the world. In recent years, there has been a heightened public awareness of pesticides and child health and a number of epidemiologic studies linked pre- and postnatal exposures to pesticides to a number of adverse developmental outcomes, including fetal death, intrauterine growth restriction, preterm birth, and birth defects. Given this, it was felt prudent to critically appraise the evidence for periconceptual pesticide exposures and developmental outcomes. The epidemiological evidence for specific pesticide classes, families, and active ingredients were examined and summarized and recommendations were made for how to improve future studies in order to address the current pitfalls and gaps in the studies in this area. Many of the studies suffered from poor exposure estimation, relying on job title only and/or the exposure category "any pesticide" as a measure of exposure, and there was limited or inadequate evidence to support causality for all associations examined.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.173
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations81
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part BSame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207