Internal versus External Dose for Describing Ternary Metal Mixture (Ni, Cu, Cd) Chronic Toxicity to <i>Lemna minor</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simultaneous determinations of internal dose ([M] tiss ) and external doses ([M] tot, {M 2+ } in solution) were conducted to study ternary mixture (Ni, Cu, Cd) chronic toxicity to Lemna minor in alkaline solution (pH 8.3). Also, concentration addition (CA) based on internal dose was evaluated as a tool for risk assessment of metal mixture. Multiple regression analysis of dose versus root growth inhibition, as well as saturation binding kinetics, provided insight into interactions. Multiple regressions were simpler for [M] tiss than [M] tot and {M 2+ }, and along with saturation kinetics to the internal biotic ligand(s) in the cytoplasm, they indicated that Ni–Cu–Cd competed for uptake into plant, but once inside, only Cu–Cd shared a binding site. Copper inorganic complexes (hydroxides, carbonates) played a role in metal bioavailability in single metal exposure but not in mixtures. Regardless of interactions, the current regulatory approach of using CA based on [M] tot can sufficiently predict mixture toxicity (∑TU close to 1), but CA based on [M] tiss was closest to unity across a range of doses. Internal dose integrates all metal–metal interactions in solution and during uptake into the organism, thereby providing a more direct metric describing toxicity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".