Plasma concentrations of cyclic volatile methylsiloxanes (cVMS) in pregnant and postmenopausal Norwegian women and self-reported use of personal care products (PCPs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dermal application of personal care products (PCPs) is considered an important human exposure route for siloxanes. Their presence as minor or major constituents in many personal care products (PCPs) and cosmetics is of concern for human exposure. The aim of this study was to quantify cyclic volatile methylsiloxanes (cVMS) in blood plasma of pregnant and postmenopausal women, and to investigate possible links to self-reported use of PCPs for the latter group. Participants were recruited from two studies, namely the Norwegian Women and Cancer Study (NOWAC) and the North Norwegian Mother-and-child Study (MISA). For the NOWAC cohort, 94 plasma samples from postmenopausal women were analyzed (blood drawn in 2005) and information about PCP use and breast implants was derived from a self-administered questionnaire. In the MISA study, the collection of the plasma samples (blood drawn in 2009) constituted a re-sampling because the original serum vacutainers used were contaminated with cVMS. D4 (octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane) was the dominant compound in plasma for both cohorts. For the NOWAC samples, more than 85% of the women had D4 concentrations above the LOQ (2.74 ng/mL), while the detection frequency was only 18% for the MISA participants. The highest cVMS plasma concentrations were observed for D4: 12.7 ng/mL (NOWAC) and 2.69 ng/mL (MISA). For the other cVMS, decamethylcyclopentasiloxane (D5) and dodecamethylcyclohexasiloxane (D6) concentrations were below the detection limit in most samples. There was no significant correlation between the concentrations of D4 and the reported total body cream use. Sampling time (2005 versus 2009) and age of the donors could explain the differences between the two cohorts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".