MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808892280 · doi:10.3390/ijerph15061293

Deriving A Drinking Water Guideline for A Non-Carcinogenic Contaminant: The Case of Manganese

2018· article· en· W2808892280 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathieu Valcke, Marie-Hélène Bourgault, Sami Haddad, Michèle Bouchard, Denis Gauvin, Patrick Levallois

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalInstitut National de Santé Publique du Québec
FundersInstitut National de Santé Publique du QuébecUniversité Laval
KeywordsManganesePercentileGuidelineEnvironmental healthIngestionToxicityToxicologyInhalationTolerable daily intakeWater treatmentEnvironmental scienceBody weightMedicineChemistryEnvironmental engineeringBiologyPathologyStatisticsMathematicsAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Manganese is a natural contaminant of water sources. It is an essential oligo-element, which may exert toxicity at high doses, particularly via inhalation. Its toxicity by the oral route is less known, but epidemiological and experimental studies tend to support its neurodevelopmental toxicity in infants and children. This paper describes the method used by a middle-size public health institution to derive a Drinking Water Guideline (DWG) for manganese. After reviewing the work done by major public health institutions, authors confirmed the use of experimental data to derive a point-of-departure (POD) of 25 mg of manganese/kg/day, based on neurodevelopmental effects on pup rats. Then, a total uncertainty factor of 450 was applied to calculate a Toxicological Reference Value (TRV) of 55 µg/kg/day. The final DWG proposed for manganese is 60 µg/L and is based on a relative source contribution (RSC) of water of 20% and an infant drinking scenario of 182 mL/kg of body weight (BW) of water (95th percentile of the ingestion rate distribution for 0⁻6 months). Despite its limitations, e.g., starting with the work done by other agencies, such an approach demonstrates in a transparent way the rationale and challenging choices made by regulators when deriving a DWG.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.316 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations12
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207