Human Exposure Assessment: A Case Study of 8 PAH Contaminated Soils Using <i>in Vitro</i> Digestors and the Juvenile Swine Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In vitro digestors can be used to provide bioaccessibility values to help assess the risk from incidental human ingestion of contaminated soils. It has been suggested that these digestors may need to include a lipid sink to mimic human uptake processes. We compare the correspondence between in vivo polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) uptake for eight different PAH contaminated soils with PAH release in in vitro digestors in the presence and absence of a lipid sink. Lipid sinks were essential to the success of the in vitro digestors in predicting juvenile swine PAH uptake. In the presence of the lipid sink, results of the In Vitro Digestion model (IVD) closely corresponded with a slope of 0.85 (r(2) = 0.45, P < 0.07) to the in vivo results. The Relative Bioaccessibility Leaching Procedure (RBALP) results did not correspond to the in vivo study but did tightly reflect total soil PAH concentration. We conclude that the basis of this difference between digestors is that the RBALP used an aggressive extraction technique that maximized PAH release from soil. Systemic uptake in juvenile swine was not linked to soil PAH concentration but rather to the thermodynamic properties of the soil.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".