MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3084301618 · doi:10.1002/etc.4869

Assessing the Ecological Risks of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances: Current State-of-the Science and a Proposed Path Forward

2020· review· en· W3084301618 on OpenAlexaff
Gerald T. Ankley, P.M. Cureton, Robert A. Hoke, Magali Houde, Anupama Kumar, Jessy Kurias, Roman P. Lanno, Chris McCarthy, John Newsted, Christopher J. Salice, Bradley E. Sample, Marı́a S. Sepúlveda, Jeffery A. Steevens, Sara Valsecchi

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Risk assessmentBioaccumulationPrioritizationAdverse Outcome PathwayHazardRegulatory scienceRisk analysis (engineering)Environmental scienceComputer scienceEnvironmental planningEcologyManagement scienceBiologyBusinessEngineeringComputational biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) encompass a large, heterogenous group of chemicals of potential concern to human health and the environment. Based on information for a few relatively well-understood PFAS such as perfluorooctane sulfonate and perfluorooctanoate, there is ample basis to suspect that at least a subset can be considered persistent, bioaccumulative, and/or toxic. However, data suitable for determining risks in either prospective or retrospective assessments are lacking for the majority of PFAS. In August 2019, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry sponsored a workshop that focused on the state-of-the-science supporting risk assessment of PFAS. The present review summarizes discussions concerning the ecotoxicology and ecological risks of PFAS. First, we summarize currently available information relevant to problem formulation/prioritization, exposure, and hazard/effects of PFAS in the context of regulatory and ecological risk assessment activities from around the world. We then describe critical gaps and uncertainties relative to ecological risk assessments for PFAS and propose approaches to address these needs. Recommendations include the development of more comprehensive monitoring programs to support exposure assessment, an emphasis on research to support the formulation of predictive models for bioaccumulation, and the development of in silico, in vitro, and in vivo methods to efficiently assess biological effects for potentially sensitive species/endpoints. Addressing needs associated with assessing the ecological risk of PFAS will require cross-disciplinary approaches that employ both conventional and new methods in an integrated, resource-effective manner. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:564-605. © 2020 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC. This article has been contributed to by US Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.109

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0080.017
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0060.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations416
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchFrench-language works237,207