MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205404298 · doi:10.3390/ijerph182111029

Landfill Leachate from an Urban Solid Waste Storage System Produces Genotoxicity and Cytotoxicity in Pre-Adolescent and Young Adults Rats

2021· article· en· W3205404298 on OpenAlexaff
Omar Ricardo Torres-González, Iván Moisés Sánchez-Hernández, Mario Eduardo Flores-Soto, V. Chaparro‐Huerta, César Soria-Fregozo, Laura Hernández-García, Eduardo Padilla‐Camberos, José Miguel Flores-Fernández

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeachateGenotoxicityEnvironmental chemistryCadmiumMicronucleus testMunicipal solid wasteWaste managementPollutantEnvironmental scienceChemistryToxicity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landfill leachate is a complex mixture of organic and inorganic molecules, as well as environmental pollutants that can cause harm to ecosystems and living beings. The micronucleus test in peripheral blood erythrocytes was used to evaluate the genotoxic and cytotoxic effects of exposure to a landfill leachate from an outdoor solid waste storage system on Wistar strain rats at different developmental stages, pre-adolescents and young adults, and the heavy metal content of the leachate was determined by atomic absorption spectrometry. Contents of arsenic, cadmium, chromium, mercury, and lead in the landfill leachate were outside the allowable international standards, and the exposure to the landfill leachate caused genotoxic and cytotoxic effects on Wistar rats, where the pre-adolescent animals were more susceptible to the toxics contained in the landfill leachate than young adults. Heavy metals contained in landfill leachate, individually or synergically with other molecules can be responsible for clastogenic and cytotoxic effects that can be harmful to humans and ecosystems.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207