Oxidative Stress and Bioindicators of Reproductive Function in Pulp and Paper Mill Effluent Exposed White Sucker
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigates oxidative stress and bioindicators of reproductive function in wild white sucker (Catostomus commersoni) collected from environments receiving pulp and paper mill effluent discharges in northern Ontario. Samples were collected over an eight-year period adjacent to three pulp and paper mills using a variety of processing and bleaching techniques. Fish collected downstream of pulp and paper mills within the Moose River basin exhibited elevated hepatic and gonadal 2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), the presence of which is indicative of oxidative stress in these tissues. Within the Jackfish Bay system, exposure to pulp and paper mill effluent did not elevate hepatic or gonadal TBARS. Hepatic cytochrome P4501A activity (CYP1A) and fatty acyl-CoA oxidase (FAO) activities were frequently increased in livers of Moose River basin fish exposed to pulp and paper mill effluent, while lower activities of both enzymes were found within fish from the Jackfish Bay system. This suggests that oxidative stress may be related to CYP1A and FAO activities. Within the Moose River system, increases in measures of oxidative stress (TBARS, FAO) were generally coincident with decreased levels of 17 beta-estradiol; however, testosterone was often lower in Jackfish Bay system fish without any commensurate changes in oxidative stress. The suite of reproductive and oxidative stress parameters measured in this study varied between seasons and mills suggesting responses to effluent are dynamic and effects are complicated by different receiving environments. The relationship between gonad size, gonadal oxidative stress, and circulating plasma steroids remains unclear.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Observational | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | high |
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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".