MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4300963130 · doi:10.3389/ftox.2022.1026314

Editorial: Women in developmental and reproductive toxicology: 2021

2022· editorial· en· W4300963130 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer J. Adibi, Sofie Christiansen, Suzanne E. Fenton, Alison C. Holloway, Heather B. Patisaul

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Toxicology · 2022
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBirth, Development, and Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
KeywordsToxicologyReproductive biologyBiologyPregnancyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Editorial on the Research Topic Women in developmental and reproductive toxicology: 2021Women remain a minority group in toxicology, both as lead investigators and in terms of using the tools of toxicology to understand environmental influences on women's health.While the fields of toxicology and environmental medicine are diversifying, underrepresented groups, including women and women of color, face unique challenges.When unmet, this can lead to isolation, lack of support, career dissatisfaction, and ultimately higher rates of attrition.This special issue was therefore conceived to highlight the work of women toxicologists to emphasize their unique mentorship and support needs, and to maximize career success.Given this focus, the scientific work primarily addresses women and child health (i.e., pregnancy and health of the next generation).This special issue contains two original data papers, a mini-review, and a perspective piece on what is needed to support and mentor women in what remains a male-dominated field.In their mini-review, Björvang and Mamsen provide evidence that many man-made chemicals, including persistent organic pollutants (POPs) accumulate in the placenta in human fetuses.Notably, some pollutants accumulate to a higher degree in male fetal tissues and their associated placentas suggesting that gestational exposure can be sexually dimorphic.Their call for greater attention on sexual differences in adverse health outcomes in toxicological studies aligns with efforts by NIH and others to consider sexual dimorphism and include sex as a biological variable in all biomedical research.Blake et al. also focused on the placenta in their paper and took a high-throughput toxicity screening approach to examine the impact of 42 unique per-and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) compounds on trophoblast cell viability and function.Using the human placental trophoblast JEG-3 cell line, the team found that some common PFAS impaired cell migration, induced oxidative stress, and impaired cellular response to xenobiotic stress.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0120.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.020

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in ToxicologySame topicBirth, Development, and HealthFrench-language works237,207