Toward Less Confusing Terminology in Endocrine Disruptor Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The realization that environmental contaminants interact with hormone receptors and mimic or antagonize the actions of endogenous hormones led to introduction of terms such as endocrine disruptor, endocrine disrupter, hormonally active chemicals, and hormone mimics into the scientific and lay press. Reports suggesting a link between exposure to chemicals adversely affecting the endocrine system and (1) increasing rates of hormone-dependent cancers (breast, prostate, and testicular), (2) developmental detrimental effects in the male reproductive tract, (3) falling sperm counts, and (4) endometriosis resulted in an explosion of research, regulatory actions, and policy changes aimed at better understanding the hazards posed by these chemicals with subsequent restriction in their use. With increasing concern, there is worldwide action to develop testing strategies to allow for early identification of chemicals possessing endocrine disruptor activity. However, despite an expanding literature and numerous expert panel meetings, there continues to be controversy surrounding how to best define endocrine disruptors, resulting in (1) ambiguous use of the term, (2) confusion in the literature, and (3) publication of contentious lists of chemicals purported to be endocrine disruptors. Herein it is argued in favor of a more restrictive definition with adoption of a less ambiguous term, and in favor of development of a classification system to enhance more effective communication and facilitate appropriate allocation of limited resources in this highly charged area of toxicology.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".