Workgroup Report: Drinking-Water Nitrate and Health—Recent Findings and Research Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Human alteration of the nitrogen cycle has resulted in steadily accumulating nitrate in our water resources. The U.S. maximum contaminant level and World Health Organization guidelines for nitrate in drinking water were promulgated to protect infants from developing methemoglobinemia, an acute condition. Some scientists have recently suggested that the regulatory limit for nitrate is overly conservative; however, they have not thoroughly considered chronic health outcomes. In August 2004, a symposium on drinking-water nitrate and health was held at the International Society for Environmental Epidemiology meeting to evaluate nitrate exposures and associated health effects in relation to the current regulatory limit. The contribution of drinking-water nitrate toward endogenous formation of N-nitroso compounds was evaluated with a focus toward identifying subpopulations with increased rates of nitrosation. Adverse health effects may be the result of a complex interaction of the amount of nitrate ingested, the concomitant ingestion of nitrosation cofactors and precursors, and specific medical conditions that increase nitrosation. Workshop participants concluded that more experimental studies are needed and that a particularly fruitful approach may be to conduct epidemiologic studies among susceptible subgroups with increased endogenous nitrosation. The few epidemiologic studies that have evaluated intake of nitrosation precursors and/or nitrosation inhibitors have observed elevated risks for colon cancer and neural tube defects associated with drinking-water nitrate concentrations below the regulatory limit. The role of drinking-water nitrate exposure as a risk factor for specific cancers, reproductive outcomes, and other chronic health effects must be studied more thoroughly before changes to the regulatory level for nitrate in drinking water can be considered.
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 | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.023 | 0.010 |
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".