MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139399279 · doi:10.1139/a08-001

Selenium and mercury in organisms: Interactions and mechanisms

2008· article· en· W2139399279 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Dan-Yi Yang, Yuwei Chen, John M. Gunn, Nelson Belzile

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)BioaccumulationSeleniumEnvironmental chemistryMethylmercuryAntagonismChemistryToxicityEcotoxicologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reviews the growing literature dealing with the antagonistic effect of selenium (Se) compounds on the toxicity of mercury (Hg) compounds in higher animals and organisms present in the aquatic environment. It covers both laboratory and field studies and summarizes the possible mechanisms that explain the protective action of Se compounds on mercuric mercury (Hg2+) and methylmercury (CH3Hg+) toxicity. The review is subdivided according to the molecular form of Hg and the organisms in which the antagonism has been studied. Many authors suggest that the protective effect of selenite on the toxicity of Hg2+in mammals is due mainly to the in vivo formation of mercuric selenide (HgSe), a stable and biologically inert complex. The detection of HgSe has been confirmed in several studies in support of this mechanism. Possible mechanisms that may be involved in the antagonism between Se compounds and CH3Hg+in mammals and aquatic organisms are also presented. The possibility of adding Se compounds to contaminated lakes and reservoirs as a remediation technique to limit the bioaccumulation of Hg2+and CH3Hg+is critically discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations306
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207