MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2086086800 · doi:10.1002/ieam.77

Environmental risk assessment for the serotonin re-uptake inhibitor fluoxetine: Case study using the European risk assessment framework

2010· article· en· W2086086800 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemistry and Chemical Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversity of GuelphTrent UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsFluoxetineRisk assessmentSerotoninSerotonin reuptake inhibitorEnvironmental scienceMedicineInternal medicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The serotonin re-uptake inhibitor fluoxetine was selected for an environmental risk assessment, using the most recent European guideline (EMEA 2006) within the European Union (EU)-funded Environmental Risk Assessment of Pharmaceuticals (ERAPharm) project due to its environmental persistence, acute toxicity to nontarget organisms, and unique pharmacokinetics associated with a readily ionizable compound. As a widely prescribed psychotropic drug, fluoxetine is frequently detected in surface waters adjacent to urban areas because municipal wastewater effluents are the primary route of entry to aquatic environments. In Phase I of the assessment, the initial predicted environmental concentration of fluoxetine in surface water (initial PEC(SW)) reached or exceeded the action limit of 10 ng/L, when using both a default market penetration factor and prescription data for Sweden, Germany, and the United Kingdom. Consequently, a Phase II risk assessment was conducted in which green algae were identified as the most sensitive species with a NOEC of <0.6 microg/L. From this value, a predicted no effect concentration for surface waters (PNEC(SW)) of 0.012 microg/L was derived. The PEC/PNEC ratio was above the trigger value of 1 in worst-case exposure scenarios indicating a potential risk to the aquatic compartment. Similarly, risks of fluoxetine for sediment-dwelling organisms could not be excluded. No risk assessment was conducted for the terrestrial compartment due to a lack of data on effects of fluoxetine on soil organisms. The need for a separate risk assessment for the main metabolite of fluoxetine, norfluoxetine, was not conducted because of a lack of fate and effect studies. Based on published data, fluoxetine and norfluoxetine appeared to have a low to moderate bioaccumulation potential, which should be confirmed in formal studies according to OECD guidelines. Exposure assessments for fluoxetine according to the current framework rely heavily on K(OC) and K(OW) values. This approach is problematic, because fluoxetine is predominantly a cationic substance at environmental pH values. Consequently, the fate of fluoxetine (and other ionic substances) cannot be predicted using partition coefficients established for nonionic compounds. Further, published estimates for partition coefficients of fluoxetine vary, resulting in considerable uncertainties in both the exposure and environmental risk assessments of fluoxetine.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.247 · 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