MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135065540 · doi:10.1289/ehp.021100699

Sex ratios of children of Russian pesticide producers exposed to dioxin.

2002· article· en· W2135065540 on OpenAlexaff
John Ryan, Zarema Amirova, Gaétan Carrier

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDemographic Trends and Gender Preferences
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSex ratioPesticideToxicologyCohortMale to femalePhysiologyMedicineAnimal scienceBiologyEnvironmental healthPopulationInternal medicineEpidemiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We investigated the sex ratio of children of pesticide workers who produced the biocide trichlorophenol and the herbicide 2,4,5-trichlorophenoxy acetic acid from 1961 to 1988 in the city of Ufa, Bashkortostan, Russia. We measured exposure of the two related cohorts to 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and other dioxins by analyzing 84 blood samples, which produced median TCDD toxic equivalents blood lipid values of 240 ng/kg, which are more than 30 times higher than background or normal exposure from the region. The sex ratio (fraction male) of the combined cohort of 227 children from 150 male and 48 female workers was 0.40, significantly lower (z-test for proportions = 3.21; p < 0.001) than those for the city of Ufa (0.512) and elsewhere worldwide. When we analyzed the sex ratio of the children according to maternal or paternal exposure, we observed a decrease in the number of boys (ratio 0.38) for fathers and a normal number (ratio 0.51) for the mothers. Human exposure of these pesticide producers to high levels of dioxins is associated with the birth of more girls, but only for paternal exposures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.264 · 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

Citations120
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicDemographic Trends and Gender PreferencesFrench-language works237,207