A Benchmark Dose Analysis for Maternal Pregnancy Urine‐Fluoride and IQ in Children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As a guide to establishing a safe exposure level for fluoride exposure in pregnancy, we applied benchmark dose modeling to data from two prospective birth cohort studies. We included mother-child pairs from the Early Life Exposures in Mexico to Environmental Toxicants (ELEMENT) cohort in Mexico and the Maternal-Infant Research on Environmental Chemicals (MIREC) cohort in Canada. Maternal urinary fluoride concentrations (U-F, in mg/L, creatinine-adjusted) were measured in urine samples obtained during pregnancy. Children were assessed for intelligence quotient (IQ) at age 4 (n = 211) and between six and 12 years (n = 287) in the ELEMENT cohort, and three to four years (n = 407) in the MIREC cohort. We calculated covariate-adjusted regression coefficients and their standard errors to assess the association of maternal U-F concentrations with children's IQ measures. Assuming a benchmark response of 1 IQ point, we derived benchmark concentrations (BMCs) and benchmark concentration levels (BMCLs). No deviation from linearity was detected in the dose-response relationships, but boys showed lower BMC values than girls. Using a linear slope for the joint cohort data, the BMC for maternal U-F associated with a 1-point decrease in IQ scores was 0.31 mg/L (BMCL, 0.19 mg/L) for the youngest boys and girls in the two cohorts, and 0.33 mg/L (BMCL, 0.20 mg/L) for the MIREC cohort and the older ELEMENT children. Thus, the joint data show a BMCL in terms of the adjusted U-F concentrations in the pregnant women of approximately 0.2 mg/L. These results can be used to guide decisions on preventing excess fluoride exposure in pregnant women.
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 | 0.022 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".