MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009085110 · doi:10.1080/15287390306460

Rapid Communication: Partitioning of Persistent Lipophilic Compounds, Including Dioxins, Between Human Milk Lipid and Blood Lipid: An Initial Assessment

2003· article· en· W2009085110 on OpenAlexaff
Lesa L. Aylward, Sean M. Hays, Judy S. LaKind, Joseph J. Ryan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicToxic Organic Pollutants Impact
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopulationNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyHuman bloodBlood lipidsChemistryLipid metabolismPhysiologyBiologyEnvironmental healthMedicineBiochemistryCholesterol

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A systematic program of sampling and analysis of blood serum for dioxins, furans, and dioxinlike polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) has been initiated in the United States through the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) program. While such data could potentially be used to estimate population-level changes in human milk lipid concentrations of chemicals, such estimates would depend on understanding the relationship between human blood lipid and milk lipid concentrations of the compounds of interest. For dioxins and furans, extremely limited data in humans currently exist for paired blood/milk samples. These data reviewed in this article, support the hypothesis that, over a population and across time, human milk lipid levels of these compounds generally reflect blood lipid levels. However, these data also suggest that significant variations in these ratios are possible among individuals and at various times.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.006

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations29
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental HealthSame topicToxic Organic Pollutants ImpactFrench-language works237,207