Review of 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) biomonitoring and epidemiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A qualitative review of the epidemiological literature on the herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and health after 2001 is presented. In order to compare the exposure of the general population, bystanders and occupational groups, their urinary levels were also reviewed. In the general population, 2,4-D exposure is at or near the level of detection (LOD). Among individuals with indirect exposure, i.e. bystanders, the urinary 2,4-D levels were also very low except in individuals with opportunity for direct contact with the herbicide. Occupational exposure, where exposure was highest, was positively correlated with behaviors related to the mixing, loading and applying process and use of personal protection. Information from biomonitoring studies increases our understanding of the validity of the exposure estimates used in epidemiology studies. The 2,4-D epidemiology literature after 2001 is broad and includes studies of cancer, reproductive toxicity, genotoxicity, and neurotoxicity. In general, a few publications have reported statistically significant associations. However, most lack precision and the results are not replicated in other independent studies. In the context of biomonitoring, the epidemiology data give no convincing or consistent evidence for any chronic adverse effect of 2,4-D in humans.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".