Anthophyllite Asbestos: The Role of Fiber Width in Mesothelioma Induction. Part 4: Mechanistic Considerations regarding the Failure to Observe Anthophyllite Asbestos Mesotheliomas in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthophyllite is an amphibole mineral formed through a prograde metamorphism of magnesium-rich ultramafic talcose rocks through increasing pressure and temperature and dehydration. The talc and anthophyllite are in phase equilibrium. Anthophyllite asbestos is therefore not a ‘contaminant’ of talc but a product derived from it. Fibrous talc, or so-called transitional fibers, are anthophyllite fibers undergoing retrograde degeneration. In its fibrous asbestiform state, anthophyllite differs in several fundamental ways from other commercially exploited forms of amphibole asbestos of which there are two broad families: monoclinic and orthorhombic. The more common forms of commercial amphibole asbestos such as crocidolite and amosite are monoclinic. The anthophyllites are orthorhombic. The differences between the two crystal systems are reflected at the level of the basic amphibole-structure in a greater overall fiber width dimensional profile and a significant reduction in microstructural strength. Strength reduction most probably arises at the cellular level and is particularly pronounced within the thinner population of fibers. Here microstructural differences, due in significant part to stacking defects in the basic amphibole structure, can account for these observations. The lack of an observed attendant mesothelioma risk following exposure to anthophyllite and transitional fibers in humans is a consequencel of these microstructural features that appear to differentiate them from the equidimensional monoclinic forms of amphibole asbestos such as South African crocidolite and amosite.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".