Chemical compounds from anthropogenic environment and immune evasion mechanisms: potential interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An increasing number of studies suggest an important role of host immunity as a barrier to tumor formation and progression. Complex mechanisms and multiple pathways are involved in evading innate and adaptive immune responses, with a broad spectrum of chemicals displaying the potential to adversely influence immunosurveillance. The evaluation of the cumulative effects of low-dose exposures from the occupational and natural environment, especially if multiple chemicals target the same gene(s) or pathway(s), is a challenge. We reviewed common environmental chemicals and discussed their potential effects on immunosurveillance. Our overarching objective was to review related signaling pathways influencing immune surveillance such as the pathways involving PI3K/Akt, chemokines, TGF-β, FAK, IGF-1, HIF-1α, IL-6, IL-1α, CTLA-4 and PD-1/PDL-1 could individually or collectively impact immunosurveillance. A number of chemicals that are common in the anthropogenic environment such as fungicides (maneb, fluoxastrobin and pyroclostrobin), herbicides (atrazine), insecticides (pyridaben and azamethiphos), the components of personal care products (triclosan and bisphenol A) and diethylhexylphthalate with pathways critical to tumor immunosurveillance. At this time, these chemicals are not recognized as human carcinogens; however, it is known that they these chemicalscan simultaneously persist in the environment and appear to have some potential interfere with the host immune response, therefore potentially contributing to promotion interacting with of immune evasion mechanisms, and promoting subsequent tumor growth and progression.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".