MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2460145472 · doi:10.1289/ehp358

Project TENDR: Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks The TENDR Consensus Statement

2016· article· en· W2460145472 on OpenAlexaff
Deborah H. Bennett, David C. Bellinger, Linda S. Birnbaum, Asa Bradman, Aimin Chen, Deborah A. Cory‐Slechta, Stephanie M. Engel, M. Daniele Fallin, Alycia Halladay, Russ Hauser, Irva Hertz‐Picciotto, Carol F. Kwiatkowski, Bruce P. Lanphear, Emily Marquez, Melanie A. Marty, Jennifer McPartland, Craig J. Newschaffer, Devon Payne-Sturges, Heather B. Patisaul, Frederica P. Perera, Beate Ritz, Jennifer Sass, Susan L. Schantz, Thomas F. Webster, Robin M. Whyatt, Tracey J. Woodruff, R. Thomas Zoeller, Laura Anderko, Carla Campbell, Jeanne A. Conry, Nathaniel G. DeNicola, Robert M. Gould, Deborah Hirtz, Katie Huffling, Philip J. Landrigan, Arthur Lavin, Mark Miller, Mark A. Mitchell, Leslie F Rubin, Ted Schettler, Ho Luong Tran, Annie Acosta, Charlotte Brody, Elise Miller, Pamela Miller, Maureen Swanson, Nsedu Obot Witherspoon

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
KeywordsAutismNeurodevelopmental disorderEnvironmental healthScientific evidenceDiseasePsychiatryIntellectual disabilityAffect (linguistics)MedicinePsychologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Summary: Children in America today are at an unacceptably high risk of developing neurodevelopmental disorders that affect the brain and nervous system including autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, intellectual disabilities, and other learning and behavioral disabilities. These are complex disorders with multiple causes—genetic, social, and environmental. The contribution of toxic chemicals to these disorders can be prevented. Approach: Leading scientific and medical experts, along with children’s health advocates, came together in 2015 under the auspices of Project TENDR: Targeting Environmental Neuro-Developmental Risks to issue a call to action to reduce widespread exposures to chemicals that interfere with fetal and children’s brain development. Based on the available scientific evidence, the TENDR authors have identified prime examples of toxic chemicals and pollutants that increase children’s risks for neurodevelopmental disorders. These include chemicals that are used extensively in consumer products and that have become widespread in the environment. Some are chemicals to which children and pregnant women are regularly exposed, and they are detected in the bodies of virtually all Americans in national surveys conducted by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The vast majority of chemicals in industrial and consumer products undergo almost no testing for developmental neurotoxicity or other health effects. Conclusion: Based on these findings, we assert that the current system in the United States for evaluating scientific evidence and making health-based decisions about environmental chemicals is fundamentally broken. To help reduce the unacceptably high prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders in our children, we must eliminate or significantly reduce exposures to chemicals that contribute to these conditions. We must adopt a new framework for assessing chemicals that have the potential to disrupt brain development and prevent the use of those that may pose a risk. This consensus statement lays the foundation for developing recommendations to monitor, assess, and reduce exposures to neurotoxic chemicals. These measures are urgently needed if we are to protect healthy brain development so that current and future generations can reach their fullest potential.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.132
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.139
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.696

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1320.139
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.009
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0120.010
Open science0.0190.020
Research integrity0.0660.040
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.015

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations162
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207