Evaluation of the Pulmonary Toxicity of Ambient Particulate Matter From Camp Victory, Iraq
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anecdotal reports in the press and epidemiological studies suggest that deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan may be associated with respiratory diseases and symptoms in U.S. military personnel and veterans. Exposures during military operations were complex, but virtually all service members were exposed to high levels of respirable, geogenic dust. Inhalation of other dusts has been shown to be associated with adverse health effects, but the pulmonary toxicity of ambient dust from Iraq has not been previously studied. The relative toxicity of Camp Victory dust was evaluated by comparing it to particulate matter from northern Kuwait, a standard U.S. urban dust, and crystalline silica using a single intratracheal instillation in rats. Lung histology, protein levels, and cell counts were evaluated in the bronchoalveolar lavage fluid 1-150 d later. The Iraq dust provoked an early significant, acute inflammatory response. However, the level of inflammation in response to the Iraq dust, U.S. urban dust, and Kuwait dust rapidly declined and was nearly at control levels by the end of the study At later times, animals exposed to the Iraq, U.S. urban, or Kuwait dusts showed increased small airway remodeling and emphysema compared to silica-exposed and control animals without evidence of fibrosis or premalignant changes. The severity and persistence of pulmonary toxicity of these three dusts from the Middle East resemble those of a U.S. urban dust and are less than those of silica. Therefore, Iraq dust exposure is not highly toxic, but similar to other poorly soluble low-toxicity dusts.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".