Improving Risk Assessment by Predicting the Survival of Field Gammarids Exposed to Dynamic Pesticide Mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure assessment of pesticides has substantially improved over time, with methods that now include a combination of advanced analytical techniques and fate/transport models to evaluate their spatiotemporal distribution. However, the current regulatory environmental risk assessment considers thresholds from laboratory studies completed under standardized conditions that do not reflect environmental dynamics. Using the General Unified Threshold model for Survival (GUTS) model framework, we predicted the impact of time-varying pesticide exposures on the survival of gammarids in a small agricultural stream. The LP 50 values were used as an additional metric for assessing risks (defined in GUTS as a multiplication factor applied to the concentration time series to induce 50% mortality by the end of exposure). Although real-case exposures to individual pesticides were predicted to produce little to no impact on survival, the LP 50 values indicate acute (LP 50 ≤ 100) and/or chronic (LP 50 ≤ 10) toxicities for azoxystrobin, chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and imidacloprid, while risk to propiconazole exposure was considered very low (LP 50 ≫ 100). Finally, the model was extended to reflect mixture toxicity via concentration addition. It predicted risks under acute and chronic exposures to organophosphates and neonicotinoids. Given that gammarids are simultaneously exposed to multiple chemicals and other stressors throughout their lifetime, a decline in survival probabilities due to chemical stress can likely influence their overall fitness. We recognize that some assumptions require validation, but our work included a level of realism that can assist risk managers when evaluating the cumulative consequences of chemical exposure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".