MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human Health Risk Assessment: Arsenic Exposure Risks in Bangladesh

2016· article· en· W2510385736 on OpenAlexaff
Cameron Farrow, Edward A. McBean

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Science and Engineering Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicArsenic contamination and mitigation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthArsenicArsenic contamination of groundwaterPopulationMedicineCancerToxicologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arsenic-caused cancers in Bangladesh, arising from both water and food sources of arsenic (As) are characterized. The results indicate countrywide incremental As cancer cases as 1.27 million, a number which will increase by 1.2% per year unless a sustainable removal technology for As from groundwater is implemented. The site-specific magnitude of the incremental cancer, driven by local groundwater conditions is demonstrated where, for example, in Chandpur, 4% of the districts’ population will develop cancer due to As intake. On average, 46% of the As body burden for Bangladeshis comes directly from water and 54% from food, although the range of percentages varies significantly from one district to the next, from a low of 0% water-based intake (indicating entire body burden from food sources) in the district of Dhaka, to a high of 91% in Chandpur. It is noteworthy that residents of Dhaka, since they are only exposed to food-related As, will see an estimated 42,000 incremental cancer cases. Treating drinking water to the Bangladeshi standard of 50µg/L would decrease incremental cancer cases in Bangladesh by 353,000; further reduction to the WHO standard of 10µg/L would reduce the number of incremental cancer cases by an additional 298,000.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Science and Engineering TechnologySame topicArsenic contamination and mitigationFrench-language works237,207