MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2076195344 · doi:10.1080/15459620903530052

Impact of Biological and Environmental Variabilities on Biological Monitoring—An Approach Using Toxicokinetic Models

2010· article· en· W2076195344 on OpenAlexafffund
Aurélie Berthet, A. de Batz, Robert Tardif, Ginette Charest‐Tardif, Ginette Truchon, David Vernez, P. O. Droz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsInstitut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travailSante MontrealUniversité de Montréal
FundersInstitut de Recherche Robert-Sauvé en Santé et en Sécurité du Travail
KeywordsToxicokineticsEnvironmental chemistryEnvironmental scienceBiological effectBiological materialsChemistryBiological systemBiologyToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biological monitoring of occupational exposure is characterized by important variability, due both to variability in the environment and to biological differences between workers. A quantitative description and understanding of this variability is important for a dependable application of biological monitoring. This work describes this variability, using a toxicokinetic model, for a large range of chemicals for which reference biological reference values exist. A toxicokinetic compartmental model describing both the parent compound and its metabolites was used. For each chemical, compartments were given physiological meaning. Models were elaborated based on physiological, physicochemical, and biochemical data when available, and on half-lives and central compartment concentrations when not available. Fourteen chemicals were studied (arsenic, cadmium, carbon monoxide, chromium, cobalt, ethylbenzene, ethyleneglycol monomethylether, fluorides, lead, mercury, methyl isobutyl ketone, penthachlorophenol, phenol, and toluene), representing 20 biological indicators. Occupational exposures were simulated using Monte Carlo techniques with realistic distributions of both individual physiological parameters and exposure conditions. Resulting biological indicator levels were then analyzed to identify the contribution of environmental and biological variability to total variability. Comparison of predicted biological indicator levels with biological exposure limits showed a high correlation with the model for 19 out of 20 indicators. Variability associated with changes in exposure levels (GSD of 1.5 and 2.0) is shown to be mainly influenced by the kinetics of the biological indicator. Thus, with regard to variability, we can conclude that, for the 14 chemicals modeled, biological monitoring would be preferable to air monitoring. For short half-lives (less than 7 hr), this is very similar to the environmental variability. However, for longer half-lives, estimated variability decreased.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.047
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental HygieneSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207