A comprehensive review of the neurobehavioral effects of bisphenol S and the mechanisms of action: New insights from in vitro and in vivo models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The normal brain development and function are delicately driven by an ever-changing milieu of steroid hormones arising from fetal, placental, and maternal origins. This reliance on the neuroendocrine system sets the stage for the exquisite sensitivity of the central nervous system to the adverse effects of endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs). Bisphenol A (BPA) is one of the most common EDCs which has been a particular focus of environmental concern for decades due to its widespread nature and formidable threat to human and animal health. The heightened regulatory actions and the scientific and public concern over the adverse health effects of BPA have led to its replacement with a suite of structurally similar but less known alternative chemicals. Bisphenol S (BPS) is the main substitute for BPA that is increasingly being used in a wide array of consumer and industrial products. Although it was considered to be a safe BPA alternative, mounting evidence points to the deleterious effects of BPS on a wide range of neuroendocrine functions in animals. In addition to its reproductive toxicity, recent experimental efforts indicate that BPS has a considerable potential to induce neurotoxicity and behavioral dysfunction. This review analyzes the current state of knowledge regarding the neurobehavioral effects of BPS and discusses its potential mode of actions on several aspects of the neuroendocrine system. We summarize the role of certain hormones and their signaling pathways in the regulation of brain and behavior and discuss how BPS induces neurotoxicity through interactions with these pathways. Finally, we review potential links between BPS exposure and aberrant neurobehavioral functions in animals and identify key knowledge gaps and hypotheses for future research.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".