Ethyl benzene should be considered ototoxic at occupationally relevant exposure concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Organic solvents can produce ototoxic effects in both man and experimental animals. The objective of this study was to review the literature on the effects of low-level exposure to ethyl benzene on the auditory system and consider its relevance for the occupational settings. Both human and animal investigations were evaluated only for realistic exposure concentrations based on the permissible exposure limits. In Quebec, the Time-Weighed Average Exposure Value for 8A h (TWAEV) is 100A ppm (434A mg/m(3)) and the Short-Term Exposure Value for 15A min (STEV) is 125A ppm (543A mg/m(3)). In humans, the upper limit for considering ototoxicity data relevant to the occupational exposure situation was set at STEV. Animal data were evaluated only for exposure concentrations up to 100 times the TWAEV. In workers, there is no evidence of either ethyl benzene-induced hearing losses or ototoxic interaction after combined exposure to ethyl benzene and noise. In rats, ethyl benzene affects the auditory function mainly in the cochlear mid-frequency range and ototoxic interaction was observed after combined exposure to noise and ethyl benzene. Further studies with sufficient data on the ethyl benzene exposure of workers are necessary to make a definitive conclusion. Given the current evidence from animal studies, we recommend considering ethyl benzene as an ototoxic agent.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".