Essentiality and toxicity of trace elements: Principles and methods for assessment of risk from human exposure to essential trace elements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recommendations aimed at protecting the public from toxicity of essential elements have been developed separately from those recommendations aimed at protection from deficiency. Because of the uncertainties involved in evaluations, these recommendations have sometimes been in conflict, emphasizing the need for a new approach including a balanced consideration of nutritional as well as toxicological data. In developing these new principles of evaluation, some basic concepts based on interindividual variability in sensitivity to deficiency and toxicity must be considered. Such variation translates into one interval of (low) daily intakes, at which there is risk of developing deficiency, and another interval of (high) dietary intakes, at which toxicity may occur. In most instances there is a third set of intakes in between, which represents the acceptable range of oral intakes (AROI) in which no adverse effects occur. It must be noted, however, that such a range cannot be found that protects all persons from adverse effects. Those persons with genetically determined sensitivity may require higher intakes to avoid deficiency, or lower intakes to avoid toxicity than those defined by AROI. AROI is defined as protecting 95% of an unselected human population from even minimal adverse effects of deficiency or toxicity. J. Trace Elem. Exp. Med. 13:141–153, 2000. © 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.
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 | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".