Quantification of short and long asbestos fibers to assess asbestos exposure: a review of fiber size toxicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The fibrogenicity and carcinogenicity of asbestos fibers are dependent on several fiber parameters including fiber dimensions. Based on the WHO (World Health Organization) definition, the current regulations focalise on long asbestos fibers (LAF) (Length: L ≥ 5 μm, Diameter: D < 3 μm and L/D ratio > 3). However air samples contain short asbestos fibers (SAF) (L < 5 μm). In a recent study we found that several air samples collected in buildings with asbestos containing materials (ACM) were composed only of SAF, sometimes in a concentration of ≥10 fibers.L-1. This exhaustive review focuses on available information from peer-review publications on the size-dependent pathogenetic effects of asbestos fibers reported in experimental in vivo and in vitro studies. In the literature, the findings that SAF are less pathogenic than LAF are based on experiments where a cut-off of 5 μm was generally made to differentiate short from long asbestos fibers. Nevertheless, the value of 5 μm as the limit for length is not based on scientific evidence, but is a limit for comparative analyses. From this review, it is clear that the pathogenicity of SAF cannot be completely ruled out, especially in high exposure situations. Therefore, the presence of SAF in air samples appears as an indicator of the degradation of ACM and inclusion of their systematic search should be considered in the regulation. Measurement of these fibers in air samples will then make it possible to identify pollution and anticipate health risk.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".