Review of petroleum toxicity and identifying common endpoints for future research on diluted bitumen toxicity in marine mammals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large volumes of conventional crude oil continue to be shipped by sea from production to consumption areas across the globe. In addition, unconventional petroleum products also transverse pelagic habitats; for example, diluted bitumen from Canada's oilsands which is shipped along the Pacific coast to the United States and Asia. Therefore, there is a continuing need to assess the toxicological consequences of chronic and catastrophic petroleum spillage on marine wildlife. Peer-reviewed literature on the toxicity of unconventional petroleum such as diluted bitumen exists for teleost fish, but not for fauna such as marine mammals. In order to inform research needs for unconventional petroleum toxicity we conducted a comprehensive literature review of conventional petroleum toxicity on marine mammals. The common endpoints observed in conventional crude oil exposures and oil spills include hematological injury, modulation of immune function and organ weight, genotoxicity, eye irritation, neurotoxicity, lung disease, adrenal dysfunction, metabolic and clinical abnormalities related to oiling of the pelage, behavioural impacts, decreased reproductive success, mortality, and population-level declines. Based on our findings and the body of literature we accessed, our recommendations for future research include: 1) improved baseline data on PAH and metals exposure in marine mammals, 2) improved pre- and post-spill data on marine mammal populations, 3) the use of surrogate mammalian models for petroleum toxicity testing, and 4) the need for empirical data on the toxicity of unconventional petroleum to marine mammals.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".