MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165324783 · doi:10.3109/01480545.2013.834353

Effects of a 28-day oral exposure to a 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one and 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one biocide formulation in Sprague-Dawley rats

2013· article· en· W2165324783 on OpenAlexaff
Guillaume Pelletier, V. E. Valli, Marc Rigden, Raymond Poon

Bibliographic record

VenueDrug and Chemical Toxicology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiocideToxicityIngestionPharmacologyPhysiologyChemistryToxicologyMedicineInternal medicineBiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biocides are added to biodiesels to prevent degradation resulting from microbial growth. A 28-day repeated oral dose study was conducted to assess a potential risk arising from ingestion of isothiazolinone biocides in biodiesels. A mixture of 5-chloro-2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one and 2-methyl-4-isothiazolin-3-one (CMIT/MIT) diluted in corn oil was administered by gavage to male and female rats at 0, 0.26, 0.78, 2.33 and 7.0 mg/kg body weight per day. Rat water and food consumption was monitored. At the end of the dosing period, organs were weighed and histological examinations performed. Hematology, serum clinical chemistry and biomarkers of inflammation were assessed. Reduction of serum triglyceride levels in males and induction of hepatic phase 1 xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes in females accompanied by subtle histological changes in the liver were observed at the highest CMIT/MIT exposure. These changes were more indicative of an adaptive, reversible response than overt toxicity. Based on recommended levels for the control of microbial growth in fuels, CMIT/MIT contained in accidentally ingested biodiesels is not expected to represent a significant health risk.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.217
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDrug and Chemical ToxicologySame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207