Effects of Speciation, Cooking and Changes in Bioaccessibility on Methylmercury Exposure Assessment for Contrasting Diets of Fish and Marine Mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uptake of the neurotoxicant monomethylmercury (MeHg) from fish and marine mammals continues to present a public health concern in Canada and elsewhere. However, fish and marine mammals are key diet items contributing to food security for some Indigenous populations in Canada. Mercury (Hg) exposure is estimated assuming that 100% of Hg is methylated, that 100% will be absorbed by the consumer and that cooking does not affect MeHg concentrations. Some of these assumptions do not correspond to our current state of knowledge. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of additional variables on Hg exposure equation using probabilistic risk analysis. New variables tested were (1) the proportion of methylated Hg compared to total Hg (pMeHg, %), (2) the relative absorption factor (RAF, %) expressed as bioaccessibility and (3) the mass loss factor (MLF, unitless) that represents the loss of moisture during cooking, known to increase MeHg concentration in fish and mammals. For the new variables, data from literature were used in order to set point estimate values that were further used in the probabilistic risk analysis. Modelling results for both fish and marine mammals indicate that adding these new variables significantly influenced estimates of MeHg exposure (Mood’s median test, p < 0.05). This study highlights that the evaluation of exposure to MeHg is sensitive to pMeHg, RAF and MLF, and the inclusion of these variables in risk assessment should be considered with care. Further research is needed to provide better food-dependent, population-specific estimates of RAF and MLF before formal inclusion in exposure estimates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".