MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077742530 · doi:10.1080/02652030500410315

Biomarkers of human exposure to ochratoxin A

2005· review· en· W2077742530 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Scott

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOchratoxin AUrineBioavailabilityMedicinePhysiologyPlasma concentrationEnvironmental healthAnimal scienceMycotoxinFood scienceBiologyEndocrinologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low blood serum/plasma concentrations of ochratoxin A (OTA) have been reported for healthy persons in more than 20 countries. Epidemiology studies in Bulgaria, Romania, Spain, the Czech Republic, Turkey, Italy, Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia have found significantly higher serum or plasma levels of OTA in patients with certain kidney disorders compared to healthy people, although the association may not be a causal one. Regional variations within one country, seasonal differences and variation within one person were found in some studies. Correlations with age and gender have not usually been detected. Detection limits using liquid chromatographic methods are about 0.02-0.1 ng ml(-1) plasma/serum so that incidences of positives often are 50-100%, reflecting widespread and continuous exposure of humans to OTA. In a study in the UK, OTA in urine was found to be a better indicator of OTA consumption than OTA in plasma. Nevertheless, blood plasma concentrations have been widely used to estimate dietary intake of OTA, using equations relating it with plasma concentration, plasma clearance and bioavailability. A further source of human exposure is airborne dust. OTA has been detected in human milk in several countries and comparisons with serum/blood levels have been made in Germany and Sweden.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations99
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives & ContaminantsSame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207