A tissue dose-based comparative exposure assessment of manganese using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling—The importance of homeostatic control for an essential metal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model (Schroeter et al., 2011) was applied to simulate target tissue manganese (Mn) concentrations following occupational and environmental exposures. These estimates of target tissue Mn concentrations were compared to determine margins of safety (MOS) and to evaluate the biological relevance of applying safety factors to derive acceptable Mn air concentrations. Mn blood concentrations measured in occupational studies permitted verification of the human PBPK models, increasing confidence in the resulting estimates. Mn exposure was determined based on measured ambient air Mn concentrations and dietary data in Canada and the United States (US). Incorporating dietary and inhalation exposures into the models indicated that increases in target tissue concentrations above endogenous levels only begin to occur when humans are exposed to levels of Mn in ambient air (i.e. > 10 μg/m 3 ) that are far higher than those currently measured in Canada or the US. A MOS greater than three orders of magnitude was observed, indicating that current Mn air concentrations are far below concentrations that would be required to produce the target tissue Mn concentrations associated with subclinical neurological effects. This application of PBPK modeling for an essential element clearly demonstrates that the conventional application of default factors to “convert” an occupational exposure to an equivalent continuous environmental exposure, followed by the application of safety factors, is not appropriate in the case of Mn. PBPK modeling demonstrates that the relationship between ambient Mn exposures and dose-to-target tissue is not linear due to normal tissue background levels and homeostatic controls.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".