Impacts of endocrine disrupting chemicals on reproduction in wildlife and humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) are ubiquitous in aquatic and terrestrial environments. The main objective of this review was to summarize the current knowledge of the impacts of EDCs on reproductive success in wildlife and humans. The examples selected often include a retrospective assessment of the knowledge of reproductive impacts over time to discern how the effects of EDCs have changed over the last several decades. Collectively, the evidence summarized here within reinforce the concept that reproduction in wildlife and humans is negatively impacted by anthropogenic chemicals, with several altering endocrine system function. These observations of chemicals interfering with different aspects of the reproductive endocrine axis are particularly pronounced for aquatic species and are often corroborated by laboratory-based experiments (i.e. fish, amphibians, birds). Noteworthy, many of these same indicators are also observed in epidemiological studies in mammalian wildlife and humans. Given the vast array of reproductive strategies used by animals, it is perhaps not surprising that no single disrupted target is predictive of reproductive effects. Nevertheless, there are some general features of the endocrine control of reproduction, and in particular, the critical role that steroid hormones play in these processes that confer a high degree of susceptibility to environmental chemicals. New research is needed on the implications of chemical exposures during development and the potential for long-term reproductive effects. Future emphasis on field-based observations that can form the basis of more deliberate, extensive, and long-term population level studies to monitor contaminant effects, including adverse effects on the endocrine system, are key to addressing these knowledge gaps.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".