Retrospective and Prospective Look at Aflatoxin Research and Development from a Practical Standpoint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the array of structurally and toxicologically diverse mycotoxins, aflatoxins have attracted the most interest of scientific research due to their high toxicity and incidence in foods and feeds. Despite the undeniable progress made in various aspects related to aflatoxins, the ultimate goal consisting of reducing the associated public health risks worldwide is far from being reached due to multiplicity of social, political, economic, geographic, climatic, and development factors. However, a reasonable degree of health protection is attained in industrialized countries owing to their scientific, administrative, and financial capacities allowing them to use high-tech agricultural management systems. Less fortunate situation exists in equatorial and sub-equatorial developing countries mainly practicing traditional agriculture managed by smallholders for subsistence, and where the climate is suitable for mould growth and aflatoxin production. Accordingly, it is difficult to harmonize the regulatory standards of aflatoxins worldwide, which prevents agri-foods of developing countries from access to the market of industrialized countries. To tackle the multi-facetted aflatoxin problems, actions should be taken collectively by the international community involving scientific research, technological and social development, environment protection, etc. International cooperation should foster technology transfer and exchange of pertinent technical information. This review presents the main historical discoveries leading to our present knowledge on aflatoxins and the challenges that should be addressed presently and in the future at various levels to ensure higher health protection for everybody. In short, it aims to elucidate where we come from and where we should go in terms of aflatoxin research/development.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".