Longitudinal changes in concentrations of persistent organic pollutants (1986–2016) and their associations with type 2 diabetes mellitus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Positive associations have been reported between persistent organic pollutants (POPs) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM); however, causality has not been established. Over the last decades, environmental exposure to legacy POPs has decreased, complicating epidemiological studies. In addition, physiological risk factors for T2DM may also influence POP concentrations, contributing to a complex network of factors that could impact associations with T2DM. Longitudinal studies on this topic are lacking, and few have assessed prospective and cross-sectional associations between repeated POP measurements and T2DM in the same individuals, which may shed light on causality. OBJECTIVES: To compare longitudinal trends in concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and organochlorine pesticides (OCPs) in T2DM cases and controls, and to examine prospective and cross-sectional associations between PCBs, OCPs and T2DM at different time-points before and after T2DM diagnosis in cases. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal, nested case-control study (1986-2016) of 116 T2DM cases and 139 controls from the Tromsø Study. All participants had three blood samples collected before T2DM diagnosis in cases, and up to two samples thereafter. We used linear mixed-effect models to assess temporal changes of POPs within and between T2DM cases and controls, and logistic regression models to investigate the associations between different POPs and T2DM at different time-points. RESULTS: PCBs, trans-nonachlor, cis-nonachlor, oxychlordane, cis-heptachlor epoxide, p,p'-DDE, and p,p'-DDT declined more slowly in cases than controls, whereas β-HCH and HCB declined similarly in both groups. Most POPs showed positive associations between both pre- and post-diagnostic concentrations and T2DM, though effect estimates were imprecise. These associations were most consistent for cis-heptachlor epoxide. DISCUSSION: The observed positive associations between certain POPs and T2DM may be because of higher POP concentrations within prospective T2DM cases, due to slower temporal declines as compared to controls.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".