MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Determinants of POPs exposure in Greenland Inuit

2000· article· en· W4240730572 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determinants of POPs exposure in Greenland Inuit PETER BJERREGAARD, DEWAILLY ERIC, AYOTTE PIERRE, PARS TINE, FERRON LILIANE, MULVAD GERT. National Institute of Public Health, Denmark. EMail: [email protected] The purpose of the study was to assess the exposure for organochlorines in relation to age, sex, and diet in a general population sample of Inuit from Greenland. Survey data and plasma concentrations of 14 polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) congeners and 16 pesticides, including 5 toxaphene congeners, were recorded in a random population survey of 408 adult indigenous Greenlanders. The geometric mean plasma concentration of the sum of PCB congeners was 12.5 mg/l. Expressed as Aroclor 1260, the PCB concentration was twice as high as among the Inuit of Nunavik, Canada, and 25 times higher than in western societies. Concentrations were similarly elevated for all PCB congeners and pesticides. Concentrations showed statistically significant positive associations with age, marine diet, and male sex in multiple linear regression analyses. Concentrations adjusted for sex and the consumption of marine food increased until appr. 50 years of age equivalent to the birth cohorts of the 1940s, after which they remained constant. This indicates that bioaccumulation started in the 1940s, which is a likely date for the introduction of the compounds into the Arctic environment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiologySame topicPer- and polyfluoroalkyl substances researchFrench-language works237,207