MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2181570953 · doi:10.2166/wqrj.2008.031

Exposure to Model-Scale Sewage Treatment Plant Effluent Affects Circulating Sex Steroids in Rainbow Trout

2008· article· en· W2181570953 on OpenAlexaff
Joanne L. Parrott, Mark E. McMaster, Subhash Verma, David Trowbridge

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic species
Canadian institutionsSault CollegeEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRainbow troutEffluentBioassayTroutChemistryAnimal scienceSewageEnvironmental chemistryBiologyFisheryFish <Actinopterygii>EcologyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Reproductive steroids were assessed in immature rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) after 21-day exposures to 10% primary or 100% secondary-treated model-scale sewage treatment plant (STP) effluent. Plasma testosterone was elevated over 4-fold in rainbow trout exposed to 10% primary model STP effluent and 100% secondary model STP effluent, and 1.7-fold and 2.5-fold in trout exposed in the following years, 2 and 3, respectively. Exposure to the positive control compound, 17β-estradiol (100 ng/L), raised plasma estradiol concentrations of exposed trout, but had few effects on plasma testosterone concentrations. There was no induction of ethoxyresorufin-O-deethylase (EROD) activity by any treatment, but liver-somatic indices were elevated in year-1 fish exposed to 10% primary or 100% secondary-treated model STP effluent. The results show that exposure to this model STP effluent can increase circulating testosterone concentrations. The rainbow trout 21-day test proved to be a simple bioassay that holds promise for onsite assessments of effluents.

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)0.003
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicReproductive biology and impacts on aquatic speciesFrench-language works237,207