MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118635061 · doi:10.1080/15287390500225724

Human Milk Biomonitoring Data: Interpretation and Risk Assessment Issues

2005· review· en· W2118635061 on OpenAlexaff
Judy S. LaKind, Robert L. Brent, Michael L. Dourson, Sam Kacew, Gideon Koren, Babasaheb Sonawane, Anita J. Tarzian, Kathleen Uhl

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental Health · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationWestern UniversityHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomonitoringBreastfeedingEnvironmental healthRisk assessmentBreast milkEpidemiologyInfant formulaHuman healthMedicineEnvironmental epidemiologyExposure assessmentBiologyPediatricsPathologyComputer scienceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biomonitoring data can, under certain conditions, be used to describe potential risks to human health (for example, blood lead levels used to determine children's neurodevelopmental risk). At present, there are very few chemical exposures at low levels for which sufficient data exist to state with confidence the link between levels of environmental chemicals in a person's body and his or her risk of adverse health effects. Human milk biomonitoring presents additional complications. Human milk can be used to obtain information on both the levels of environmental chemicals in the mother and her infant's exposure to an environmental chemical. However, in terms of the health of the mother, there are little to no extant data that can be used to link levels of most environmental chemicals in human milk to a particular health outcome in the mother. This is because, traditionally, risks are estimated based on dose, rather than on levels of environmental chemicals in the body, and the relationship between dose and human tissue levels is complex. On the other hand, for the infant, some information on dose is available because the infant is exposed to environmental chemicals in milk as a "dose" from which risk estimates can be derived. However, the traditional risk assessment approach is not designed to consider the benefits to the infant associated with breastfeeding and is complicated by the relatively short-term exposures to the infant from breastfeeding. A further complexity derives from the addition of in utero exposures, which complicates interpretation of epidemiological research on health outcomes of breastfeeding infants. Thus, the concept of "risk assessment" as it applies to human milk biomonitoring is not straightforward, and methodologies for undertaking this type of assessment have not yet been fully developed. This article describes the deliberations of the panel convened for the Technical Workshop on Human Milk Surveillance and Biomonitoring for Environmental Chemicals in the United States, held at the Hershey Medical Center, Pennsylvania State College of Medicine, on several issues related to risk assessment and human milk biomonitoring. Discussion of these topics and the thoughts and conclusions of the panel are described in this article.

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)0.137
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.303
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.725

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1370.303
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.008
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0080.004
Research integrity0.0050.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.360 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Toxicology and Environmental HealthSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207