Effects of brominated and organophosphate ester flame retardants on male reproduction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Environmental chemicals that interfere with the production and/or action of hormones may have adverse effects on male reproduction. This review focuses on the possible impact of exposure to flame retardant chemicals on male reproduction. Flame retardants are added to a wide variety of combustible materials to prevent fires from starting, slow their spread, and provide time to escape. However, these chemicals are often additive so they leach out into the environment. Governments have restricted the use of polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants based on evidence that they are persistent and bioaccumulate and have adverse effects on health. The phasing out of these "legacy" flame retardants has resulted in their replacement with alternatives, such as tetrabromobisphenol A and the organophosphate esters. OBJECTIVE: To review the literature on the effects of brominated and organophosphate ester flame retardant chemicals on male reproduction. METHODS: PubMed database was searched for studies reporting the effects of brominated and organophosphate ester flame retardants on male reproduction. RESULTS: Cell-based, animal model, and human studies provide evidence that the polybrominated diphenyl ethers act as endocrine-disrupting chemicals; further, exposure during critical windows of development may be associated with a permanent impact on male reproduction. In vitro and animal model data are accumulating with respect to the effects of tetrabromobisphenol A and organophosphate esters, but few studies have evaluated their impact on human health. CONCLUSIONS: More research on human exposure to replacement flame retardants and the possibility that they may be associated with adverse reproductive health outcomes is a high priority.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".