Effects of dietary exposure of mink (<i>Mustela vison</i>) to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-<i>p</i>-dioxin, 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran on reproduction and offspring viability and growth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the effects of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF), and 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzofuran (TCDF) on the reproductive performance of female mink (Mustela vison) and the viability and growth of their offspring. Nine adult female mink were randomly assigned to one of 13 dietary treatments (one control and four doses each of TCDD, PeCDF, and TCDF [2.1-8.4, 4.0-15 and 5.2-25 ng TCDD toxic equivalents (TEQ)/kg body wt/d]). Diets were fed from two months prior to breeding through weaning of offspring at six weeks of age. At least nine kits per treatment group were maintained on their diets through 27 weeks of age. There were no effects on litter size or viability of offspring. No consistent effects were observed on body mass or relative organ masses of animals at any age. 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and PeCDF accumulated in the liver and adipose tissue, but TCDF cleared rapidly. The lack of significant effects on reproduction and offspring viability contrasts with effects reported for mink exposed to environmentally derived PCB mixtures with equivalent TCDD potencies. This suggests that it may be inappropriate to apply toxicity reference values associated with PCB mixtures to animals also exposed to TCDD, PeCDF, or TCDF, and the World Health Organization TCDD toxic equivalency factors for some congeners may not be appropriate for mink.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".