MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308915290 · doi:10.1289/ehp10808

A Systematic Review of Mercury Exposures from Skin-Lightening Products

2022· review· en· W4308915290 on OpenAlexaff
Ashley Bastiansz, Jessica Ewald, Verónica Rodríguez Saldaña, Andrea Santa‐Rios, Niladri Basu

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMercury impact and mitigation studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMercury (programming language)Interquartile rangeWeb of scienceMERCURY EXPOSUREEnvironmental healthScopusData extractionSystematic reviewMedicineMEDLINEToxicologyEnvironmental chemistryBiomonitoringComputer scienceChemistryBiologyMeta-analysisPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: . However, there is a lack of knowledge surrounding the global prevalence of mercury-added skin-lightening products. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to increase our understanding of worldwide human mercury exposure from skin-lightening products. METHODS: ) "Health impacts." RESULTS: ; interquartile range (IQR): 0.02-5.9] and 1,042 human biomarker measurements from 863 individuals. We also synthesized usage information from 3,898 individuals and self-reported health impacts associated with using mercury-added products from 832 individuals. DISCUSSION: This review suggests that mercury widely exists as an active ingredient in many skin-lightening products worldwide and that users are at risk of variable and often high exposures. These synthesized findings identify data gaps and help increase our understanding of the health risks associated with the use of these products. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10808.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.625
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.295 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations54
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicMercury impact and mitigation studiesFrench-language works237,207