Risk evaluation of the Arctic environmental POP exposure based on critical body residue and critical daily dose using captive Greenland sledge dogs (Canis familiaris) as surrogate species
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk from POP (persistent organic pollutant) exposure and subsequent reproductive, immunotoxic and liver histopathological effects was evaluated in a classical parallel trial on Greenland sledge dogs (Canis familiaris) fed contaminated minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata) blubber. First the critical body residues (CBRs) were estimated using the physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for seven POP compounds based on rat critical daily doses (CDDs). These were then compared with the actual daily oral POP doses (DD) and body residues (BR) in the sledge dogs by calculating risk quotients (RQDD: DD/CDD; RQBR: BR/CBR; ≥1 indicates risk). The results showed that risk quotients for reproductive, immunotoxic and liver histopathological effects were significantly lowest in the control group (p<0.01) while risk quotients based on daily doses (RQDD) were significantly lower than RQs based on body residues (RQBR) (all p<0.01). RQBR in the exposed group ranged from 1.0-12 for reproductive and immunotoxic effects while those for liver histopathological effects ranged from 0.7-3.0. PCBs (polychlorinated biphenyls) and chlordanes were the dominant driver behind high immune and reproductive RQs while dieldrin was the most important factor behind RQs for liver histopathology. Principal component analyses and Spearman rank correlation analyses showed that complement and cellular immune parameters were significantly negative correlated with RQBR (all p<0.05) while logistic regression showed that RQDD had a significant effect on the number of born cups (p=0.03). No significantly relations were found between RQs and hormone concentrations, number of gestations, antibody titres or liver histopathology. These results confirm previous studies showing that POP exposure negatively impacts steroid hormones, various immune parameters, as well as liver histopathology in sledge dogs. It is also clear that RQBR is the best reflector of health effects from POP exposure and that it is especially accurate in predicting immune and reproductive effects. We recommend that PBPK modelled (CBR) and RQBR should be used in the assessment of POP exposure and health effects in Arctic top predators.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 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 teacher head, 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".