Association between environmental contaminants and health outcomes in indigenous populations of the Circumpolar North
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Since the 1990s, research has been carried out to monitor environmental contaminants and their effects on human health in the Arctic. Although evidence shows that Arctic indigenous peoples are exposed to higher levels of contaminants and do worse on several dimensions of health compared with other populations, the contribution of such exposures on adverse outcomes is unclear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to provide a synopsis of the published epidemiological literature that has examined association between environmental contaminants and health outcomes in Arctic indigenous populations. DESIGN: A literature search was conducted in OVID Medline (1946-January 2014) using search terms that combined concepts of contaminant and indigenous populations in the Arctic. No language or date restrictions were applied. The reference lists of review articles were hand-searched. RESULTS: Of 559 citations, 60 studies were relevant. The studies fell under the following categories: paediatric (n=18), reproductive health (n=18), obstetrics and gynaecology (n=9), cardiology (n=7), bone health (n=2), oncology (n=2), endocrinology (n=2) and other (n=2). All studies, except one from Arctic Finland, were either from Nunavik or Greenland. Most studies assessed polychlorinated biphenyls (n=43) and organochlorine pesticides (n=29). Fewer studies examined heavy metals, perfluorinated compounds, or polybrominated diphenyl ethers. Details of study results for each health category are provided. CONCLUSIONS: It is difficult to make conclusive statements about the effects of environmental contaminants on health due to mixed results, small number of studies and studies being restricted to a small number of regions. Meta-analytical synthesis of the evidence should be considered for priority contaminants and health outcomes. The following research gaps should be addressed in future studies: association of contaminants and health in other Arctic regions (i.e. Inuvialuit Settlement Region, Nunavut, Nunatsiavut, Alaska, European North and Russian North); assessment of contaminants on chronic diseases; inclusion of clinical endpoints in assessments; and assessment of the emerging contaminants of perfluorinated compounds and polybrominated diphenyl ethers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".