MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034542110 · doi:10.1002/ieam.4300

A Mystery Tale: Nickel Is Fickle When Snails Fail—Investigating the Variability in Ni Toxicity to the Great Pond Snail

2020· article· en· W3034542110 on OpenAlexafffund
Anne Crémazy, Kevin V. Brix, D. Scott Smith, Weibin Chen, Martin Grosell, Christian E. Schlekat, Emily Garman, Elizabeth Middleton, Chris M. Wood

Bibliographic record

VenueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and Management · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaWilfrid Laurier UniversityUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNickel Producers Environmental Research Association
KeywordsLymnaea stagnalisFreshwater snailSnailToxicityPopulationChronic toxicityEnvironmental chemistryBioavailabilityToxicologyBiologyEnvironmental toxicologyBiotic Ligand ModelEcotoxicologyEcologyZoologyChemistryEnvironmental healthMedicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ni. This variability makes L. stagnalis either a moderately sensitive or the most sensitive freshwater species to chronic Ni exposure tested to date. Given the role of sensitive species in environmental risk assessment frameworks, it is particularly important to understand this variability, i.e., to characterize the factors that modulate Ni toxicity and that may confound toxicity test outcomes when uncontrolled. In the present study, we tested if this variability was due to analytical (growth calculation: biomass versus growth rate), environmental (water quality), lab-specific practices, and/or snail population differences among earlier studies. Specifically, we reanalyzed previously published Ni toxicity data and conducted additional measurements of Ni aqueous speciation, short-term Ni uptake, and chronic Ni toxicity with test waters and snail cultures used in previous studies. Corrections for Ni bioavailability and growth calculations explained a large degree of variability in the published literature. However, a residual 16-fold difference remained puzzling between 2 studies: Niyogi et al. (2014) (low ECxs) and Crémazy et al. (2018) (high ECxs). Indeed, differences in metal bioavailability due to water chemistry, lab-specific practices, and snail population sensitivity could not explain the large variation in Ni toxicity in these 2 very similar studies. Other potentially important toxicity-modifying factors were not directly evaluated in the present work: test duration, diet, snail holding conditions, and snail age at onset of testing. The present analysis highlights the need for further studies to elucidate 1) the mechanisms of growth inhibition in Ni-exposed L. stagnalis and 2) the important abiotic and biotic factors affecting this biological response. Until these processes are understood, substantial uncertainties will remain about inclusion of this species in Ni environmental risk assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:983-997. © 2020 SETAC.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntegrated Environmental Assessment and ManagementSame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207