The use of biomonitoring equivalents for interpreting blood concentrations in population studies: a case for polychlorinated biphenyls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of exposure guideline values for environmental contaminants are established by various agencies for risk assessment purposes. Biomonitoring equivalents are conversions of external guideline values to internal doses, against which biomonitoring data can be directly compared. Several biomonitoring equivalents have been developed for the interpretation of blood concentrations of environmental contaminants, but none has yet been developed for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). In this paper, we describe information needed to develop biomonitoring equivalents for PCBs and discuss anticipated challenges. We provide a broad overview of PCB absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion, PCB guideline values, and PCB pharmacokinetic modeling efforts in animals and humans. We also provide strategies to address anticipated challenges in deriving biomonitoring equivalents for this complex contaminant. Biomonitoring equivalents will be useful for the interpretation of the PCB biomonitoring data that is currently available for populations around the globe through national surveys and research of specific populations.
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 | 0.155 | 0.201 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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".