MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087080835 · doi:10.1289/ehp.1003012

Evaluation of the Cardiovascular Effects of Methylmercury Exposures: Current Evidence Supports Development of a Dose–Response Function for Regulatory Benefits Analysis

2011· review· en· W2087080835 on OpenAlexaff
Henry Roman, Tyra L. Walsh, Brent A. Coull, Éric Dewailly, Eliseo Güallar, Dale Hattis, Koenraad Mariën, Joel Schwartz, Alan H. Stern, Jyrki K. Virtanen, Glenn Rice

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentre hospitalier universitaire de Québec
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethylmercuryEnvironmental healthMedicineRisk assessmentEnvironmental chemistryChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has estimated the neurological benefits of reductions in prenatal methylmercury (MeHg) exposure in past assessments of rules controlling mercury (Hg) emissions. A growing body of evidence suggests that MeHg exposure can also lead to increased risks of adverse cardiovascular impacts in exposed populations. DATA EXTRACTION: The U.S. EPA assembled the authors of this article to participate in a workshop, where we reviewed the current science concerning cardiovascular health effects of MeHg exposure via fish and seafood consumption and provided recommendations concerning whether cardiovascular health effects should be included in future Hg regulatory impact analyses. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found the body of evidence exploring the link between MeHg and acute myocardial infarction (MI) to be sufficiently strong to support its inclusion in future benefits analyses, based both on direct epidemiological evidence of an MeHg-MI link and on MeHg's association with intermediary impacts that contribute to MI risk. Although additional research in this area would be beneficial to further clarify key characteristics of this relationship and the biological mechanisms that underlie it, we consider the current epidemiological literature sufficiently robust to support the development of a dose- response function. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend the development of a dose- response function relating MeHg exposures with MIs for use in regulatory benefits analyses of future rules targeting Hg air emissions.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.090
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.227

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.090
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.105
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations257
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207