MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2100901504 · doi:10.1186/1476-069x-7-55

Concentrations versus amounts of biomarkers in urine: a comparison of approaches to assess pyrethroid exposure

2008· article· en· W2100901504 on OpenAlexaff
Marie-Chantale Fortin, Gaétan Carrier, Michèle Bouchard

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPyrethroidUrineToxicologyMedicineEnvironmental healthBiologyInternal medicinePesticideAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Assessment of human exposure to non-persistent pesticides such as pyrethroids is often based on urinary biomarker measurements. Urinary metabolite levels of these pesticides are usually reported in volume-weighted concentrations or creatinine-adjusted concentrations measured in spot urine samples. It is known that these units are subject to intra- and inter-individual variations. This research aimed at studying the impact of these variations on the assessment of pyrethroid absorbed doses at individual and population levels. METHODS: Using data obtained from various adult and infantile populations, the intra and inter-individual variability in the urinary flow rate and creatinine excretion rate was first estimated. Individual absorbed doses were then calculated using volume-weighted or creatinine-adjusted concentrations according to published approaches and compared to those estimated from the amounts of biomarkers excreted in 15- or 24-h urine collections, the latter serving as a benchmark unit. The effect of the units of measurements (volume-weighted or creatinine adjusted concentrations or 24-h amounts) on results of the comparison of pyrethroid biomarker levels between two populations was also evaluated. RESULTS: Estimation of daily absorbed doses of permethrin from volume-weighted or creatinine-adjusted concentrations of biomarkers was found to potentially lead to substantial under or overestimation when compared to doses reconstructed directly from amounts excreted in urine during a given period of time (-70 to +573% and -83 to +167%, respectively). It was also shown that the variability in creatinine excretion rate and urinary flow rate may introduce a bias in the case of between population comparisons. CONCLUSION: The unit chosen to express biomonitoring data may influence the validity of estimated individual absorbed dose as well as the outcome of between population comparisons.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.190
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.105 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations45
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental HealthSame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207