Dosimetry Modeling of Inhaled Formaldehyde: Binning Nasal Flux Predictions for Quantitative Risk Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interspecies extrapolations of tissue dose and tumor response have been a significant source of uncertainty in formaldehyde cancer risk assessment. The ability to account for species-specific variation of dose within the nasal passages would reduce this uncertainty. Three-dimensional, anatomically realistic, computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models of nasal airflow and formaldehyde gas transport in the F344 rat, rhesus monkey, and human were used to predict local patterns of wall mass flux (pmol/[mm(2)-h-ppm]). The nasal surface of each species was partitioned by flux into smaller regions (flux bins), each characterized by surface area and an average flux value. Rat and monkey flux bins were predicted for steady-state inspiratory airflow rates corresponding to the estimated minute volume for each species. Human flux bins were predicted for steady-state inspiratory airflow at 7.4, 15, 18, 25.8, 31.8, and 37 l/min and were extrapolated to 46 and 50 l/min. Flux values higher than half the maximum flux value (flux median) were predicted for nearly 20% of human nasal surfaces at 15 l/min, whereas only 5% of rat and less than 1% of monkey nasal surfaces were associated with fluxes higher than flux medians at 0.576 l/min and 4.8 l/min, respectively. Human nasal flux patterns shifted distally and uptake percentage decreased as inspiratory flow rate increased. Flux binning captures anatomical effects on flux and is thereby a basis for describing the effects of anatomy and airflow on local tissue disposition and distributions of tissue response. Formaldehyde risk models that incorporate flux binning derived from anatomically realistic CFD models will have significantly reduced uncertainty compared with risk estimates based on default methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".