Pulp and paper mill effluent treatments have differential endocrine-disrupting effects on rainbow trout
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endocrine disruption (ED) effects due to pulp and paper mill effluents extracts involving different industrial procedures and effluent treatments (nontreated, primary, and secondary treated) were evaluated using immature triploid rainbow trout in a pulse-exposure toxicity experiment. The protocol involved the use of intraperitoneal injection of mill extracts (solid-phase extraction [SPE]) corrected for individual fish weight and included several laboratory standards (steroidal hormones and phytosterols). Biological endpoints at two different levels of biological organization were analyzed (molecular and individual organism). Results indicated that nonsignificant changes were observed in the individual physiological indices represented by condition factor, liver somatic index, and gonad somatic index during the experiment. Significant induction of liver ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase activity was observed between different effluent treatments and experimental controls. Significant endocrine-disrupting effects at the reproductive level were observed in all effluent treatments involving significant increments in plasma vitellogenin (VTG) levels. Fish exposed to untreated effluent extracts had significantly higher VTG levels compared to fish exposed to primary and secondary treatment effluent extracts, indicating a decrease of the estrogenic effect due to the effluent treatment. The present study has shown that for the Chilean pulp and paper mill SPE extracts evaluated, an endocrine disruption effect was induced in immature triploid rainbow, reaffirming the significant estrogenic effects demonstrated previously in laboratory and field experiments.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".