MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2364980423 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000000712

Brain Anatomy in Latino Farmworkers Exposed to Pesticides and Nicotine

2016· article· en· W2364980423 on OpenAlexaff
Paul J. Laurienti, Jonathan H. Burdette, Jennifer W. Talton, Carey Pope, Phillip Summers, Francis O. Walker, Sara A. Quandt, Robert G. Lyday, Haiying Chen, Timothy D. Howard, Thomas A. Arcury

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPesticide Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsStillwater (Canada)
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
KeywordsCotinineNicotinePutamenMedicinePhysiologyPesticideUrinary systemCholinesteraseEnvironmental healthToxicologyInternal medicineBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Migrant tobacco farmworkers experience regular occupational exposure to pesticides and nicotine. The present study was designed to determine whether there are differences in brain anatomy between Latino farmworkers and non-farmworkers. METHODS: Magnetic resonance brain images were compared between farmworkers and non-farmworkers. In addition, blood cholinesterase activity and urinary cotinine levels were also used to identify associations with pesticide and nicotine exposure. RESULTS: Farmworkers had greater gray matter signal in putamen and cerebellum, and lower gray matter signal in frontal and temporal lobes. Urinary cotinine was associated with the observed differences in brain anatomy, but blood cholinesterase activity was not. CONCLUSIONS: Nicotine exposure was associated with neuroanatomical differences between Latino farmworkers and non-farmworkers. Future studies are needed to differentiate iron deposition from brain atrophy and to further assess the potential role of nicotine and pesticide exposure.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.320

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicPesticide Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207