MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097953771 · doi:10.1093/mutage/16.2.103

A test of the mutagenicity of cooked meats in vivo

2001· article· en· W2097953771 on OpenAlexaff
John A. Heddle

Bibliographic record

VenueMutagenesis · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMutagenFood scienceCalorieChemistryMutantIn vivoMutagenesisFish <Actinopterygii>BiologyBiochemistryGeneticsCarcinogenEndocrinologyGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a correlation between intestinal cancer and diets high in meat, so fried beef, chicken, lamb, pork and fish were tested for their ability to induce mutations in the small intestine of mice. The mice were bred to be heterozygous at the Dlb-1 locus so that loss of the dominant Dlb-1 b allele by mutation could be detected. Mice were fed the AIN-76A diet (which contains 50% of the calories in the form of sucrose) or an isocaloric diet in which the sucrose was replaced by meat or fish, for 5 or 9 weeks. Manifestation of mutants requires approximately 1 week in this system, so this corresponds to an effective exposure of 4 and 8 weeks, respectively. There was no significant difference in the weights of animals on the different diets, and no difference in mutant frequency. Several food mutagens were present, but at low levels. These results, when considered in the light of tests of 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b] pyridine and amino(alpha)carboline at much higher doses (Zhang,X.-B., Tao,K.S., Urlando,C., Shaver-Walker,P. and Heddle,J.A. (1996) MUTAGENESIS:, 11, 43-48), indicate that there is no highly mutagenic compound missed by previous testing with bacterial assays and that mixtures of heterocyclic amines at low levels do not show great synergy.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMutagenesisSame topicCarcinogens and Genotoxicity AssessmentFrench-language works237,207