MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014993359 · doi:10.1080/15287390590953635

Phenoxyacetic Acid Herbicide Exposure for Women on Ontario Farms

2005· article· en· W2014993359 on OpenAlexaffabout
Tye E. Arbuckle, Len Ritter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMCPAPesticideUrineToxicologyAnimal sciencePopulationMedicineBiologyAgronomyEnvironmental healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Women living and working on farms would be expected to have higher exposure to pesticides than the general nonoccupationally exposed population. Urinary concentrations of the herbicides 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and (4-chloro-2-methyl) phenoxyacetic acid (MCPA) were measured in 125 women living on farms in Ontario where these herbicides had recently been used for the first time that growing season. The women collected a spot urine void prior to the start of herbicide handling by spouses, followed by 2 consecutive 24-h urine samples. The pesticide applicator provided questionnaire data on pesticides that were used on the farm. Approximately 80% of the women had no detectable level of either herbicide in their urine. Geometric mean urinary concentrations of 2,4-D and MCPA in the d-2 samples were 0.7 microg/L. The responses to the questions on herbicide use on the farm were compared with urinary levels of the herbicide and the sensitivity for MCPA was determined to be 95-100%; however, the false positive rate for exposure was 70%. For 2,4-D, the sensitivity and specificity were approximately 70%, with a false positive rate of 30%. A simple question on whether the herbicide was used recently can accurately identify people who are likely not exposed; however, further research is required to be able to more validly predict those individuals who are exposed. Based on our study, it was concluded that exposure estimates based on questionnaire data alone may be fraught with uncertainties, which may differ depending on the particular pesticide of interest.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.546

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental HealthSame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207