Correction and comparability of phthalate metabolite measurements of Canadian biomonitoring studies (2007–2012)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phthalate metabolites are often measured in biomonitoring studies to evaluate a population's exposure to ubiquitous phthalates. During the course of national biomonitoring studies in Canada, we identified an issue with the accuracy of several commercial phthalate metabolite standards that are commonly used in such studies. The validity of the results from these studies was then questioned. Altogether, three (3) large studies were affected, involving a total of 9302 samples and 105000 individual phthalate metabolite measurements. Data from our previous investigation suggested that the inaccuracies in the commercially-available phthalate metabolite standards were compound- and lot-specific. Therefore, an approach was developed to derive correction factors for each lot of phthalate metabolite standard and was applied to the previously-acquired measurements with the goal of obtaining accurate and comparable data. A statistical analysis was performed to support the approach. It is expected that the corrected phthalate metabolite data from all three Canadian biomonitoring studies are comparable to one another. However, caution is still advised when comparing data obtained from biomonitoring studies for which the calibration standards have not been investigated for their accuracy. Suggestions are made based on quality assurance aspects to improve the validity of phthalate metabolite measurements.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".