MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2008778237 · doi:10.1080/10406630008034793

Relative Genotoxicities of PAH of Molecular Weight 252 AMU in Coal Tar-Contaminated Sediment

2000· article· en· W2008778237 on OpenAlexaff
Chris Marvin, Shamir R. Mehta, Daniel W. Lin, Brian E. McCarry, Douglas W. Bryant

Bibliographic record

VenuePolycyclic aromatic compounds · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryBioassayPyreneFractionationFraction (chemistry)ChromatographyEnvironmental chemistryCarcinogenSedimentCoal tarBenzo(a)pyreneContaminationCoalOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bioassay-directed chemical fractionation methodology was used to calculate relative mutagenic potencies of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH) of molecular weight 252 amu in coal tarcontaminated sediment from Sydney Harbour, Nova Scotia. A normal phase HPLC technique was used to separate organic solvent extracts into fractions containing isomeric PAH of a single benzologue class. Bioassays with Salmonella typhimurium strain YG1025 with the addition of oxidative metabolism (S9) showed that approximately 50% of the mutagenic activity observed in the sediment extract was associated with PAH of molecular weight 252 amu. Further separation of the 252 PAH fraction using reversed phase HPLC yielded subfractions containing individual compounds; bioassay dose-response curves for these subfractions showed that benzo[a]pyrene was responsible for approximately 75% of the activity of the 252 PAH fraction.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolycyclic aromatic compoundsSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207