Systematic review and quality ranking of studies of two phthalate metabolites and anogenital distance, bone health, inflammation, and oxidative stress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Phthalates are ubiquitous chemical compounds, and two-di-ethyl phthalate (DEP) and di-isobutyl phthalate (DiBP)-are not currently regulated by the U.S. Congress or the European Union. While many reviews of phthalates have been published, none have examined bone health, inflammation, or oxidative stress; anogenital distance was most recently reviewed in 2014. The objective of this paper is to determine if an association exists between mono-ethyl phthalate (MEP) or mono-isobutyl phthalate (MiBP), metabolites of DEP and DiBP, respectively, and the four outcomes indicated above. We conducted a literature search of PubMed through December 2017 and included 29 observational epidemiologic studies published in English that assessed MEP and/or MiBP in relation to one of the above four health outcomes in humans. Two authors rated each paper using a modified Downs and Black (DB) assessment tool; a third author settled score disagreements. A single author extracted information related to the study population, exposure and outcome assessment, covariates, and significant results from each article. Ten studies were identified on anogenital distance, four on bone health, five on inflammation, and thirteen on oxidative stress. Score percentages (total points given out of total possible points) were calculated for each study. The current research suggests a positive association between MiBP and two measures of oxidative stress, 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) and 8-isoprostane. MEP is potentially associated with 8-OHdG as well, although the evidence is limited by fewer high-quality studies. There does not appear to be an association between anogenital distance and MEP or MiBP, and it is unclear if relationships exist between these phthalate metabolites and bone health and inflammation. Given the role that oxidative stress plays in a number of diseases and the ubiquity of MEP and MiBP, it is important that individuals be aware of potential sources of exposure to these chemicals.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".