Glyphosate in the general population and in applicators: a critical review of studies on exposures
Post-publication record
Source: Retraction Watch, joined by DOI. OpenAlex records retraction as is_retracted, a boolean over a state space with at least four values, so it cannot express an expression of concern, a correction or a reinstatement; it reports them as false, which reads as “fine”.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The recent classification of glyphosate as a probable human carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) was arrived at without a detailed assessment of exposure. Glyphosate is widely used as an herbicide, which might result in exposures of the general public and applicators. Exposures were estimated from information in the open literature and unpublished reports provided by Monsanto Company. Based on the maximum measured concentration in air, an exposure dose of 1.04 × 10 − 6 mg/kg body mass (b.m.)/d was estimated. Assuming consumption of surface water without treatment, the 90th centile measured concentration would result in a consumed dose of 2.25 × 10 − 5 mg/kg b.m./d. Estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) of consumed doses in food provided a median exposure of 0.005 mg/kg b.m./d (range 0.002–0.013). Based on tolerance levels, the conservative estimate by the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) for exposure of the general population via food and water was 0.088 mg/kg b.m./d (range 0.058–0.23). For applicators, 90th centiles for systemic exposures based on biomonitoring and dosimetry (normalized for penetration through the skin) were 0.0014 and 0.021 mg/kg b.m./d, respectively. All of these exposures are less than the reference dose and the acceptable daily intakes proposed by several regulatory agencies, thus supporting a conclusion that even for these highly exposed populations the exposures were within regulatory limits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".