MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087425769 · doi:10.1080/10937400290070062

THE TOXICOLOGY OF INHALED WOODSMOKE

2002· review· en· W2087425769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Judith T. Zelikoff, Lung‐Chi Chen, Mitchell D. Cohen, Richard B. Schlesinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part B · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthHuman healthHazardBusinessToxicologyMedicineBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In addition to developing nations relying almost exclusively upon biomass fuels, such as wood for cooking and home heating, North Americans, particularly in Canada and the northwestern and northeastern sections of the United States, have increasingly turned to woodburning as an alternate method for domestic heating because of increasing energy costs. As a result, the number of households using woodburning devices has increased dramatically. This has resulted in an increase in public exposure to indoor and outdoor woodsmoke-associated pollutants, which has prompted widespread concern about the adverse human health consequences that may be associated with prolonged woodsmoke exposure. This mini-review article brings together many of the human and animal studies performed over the last three decades in an attempt to better define the toxicological impact of inhaled woodsmoke on exposed children and adults; particular attention is given to effects upon the immune system. General information regarding occurrence and woodsmoke chemistry is provided so as to set the stage for a better understanding of the toxicological impact. It can be concluded from this review that exposure to woodsmoke, particularly for children, represents a potential health hazard. However, despite its widespread occurrence and apparent human health risks, relatively few studies have focused upon this particular area of research. More laboratory studies aimed at understanding the effects and underlying mechanisms of woodsmoke exposure, particularly on those individuals deemed to be at greatest risk, are badly needed, so that precise human health risks can be defined, appropriate regulatory standards can be set, and accurate decisions can be made concerning the use of current and new woodburning devices.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Citations204
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health Part BSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207