A systematic evidence map for the evaluation of noncancer health effects and exposures to polychlorinated biphenyl mixtures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assessing health outcomes associated with exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) is important given their persistent and ubiquitous nature. PCBs are classified as a Group 1 carcinogen, but the full range of potential noncancer health effects from exposure to PCBs has not been systematically summarized and evaluated. We used systematic review methods to identify and screen the literature using combined manual review and machine learning approaches. A protocol was developed that describes the literature search strategy and Populations, Exposures, Comparators, and Outcomes (PECO) criteria used to facilitate subsequent screening and categorization of literature into a systematic evidence map of PCB exposure and noncancer health endpoints across 15 organs/systems. A comprehensive literature search yielded 62,599 records. After electronic prioritization steps, 17,037 studies were manually screened at the title and abstract level. An additional 900 studies identified by experts or supplemental searches were also included. After full-text screening of 3889 references, 1586 studies met the PECO criteria. Relevant study details such as the endpoints assessed, exposure duration, and species were extracted into literature summary tables. This review compiles and organizes the human and mammalian studies from these tables into an evidence map for noncancer health endpoints and PCB mixture exposure to identify areas of robust research as well as areas of uncertainty that would benefit from future investigation. Summary data are available online as interactive visuals with downloadable metadata. Sufficient research is available to inform PCB hazard assessments for most organs/systems, but the amount of data to inform associations with specific endpoints differs. Furthermore, despite many years of research, sparse data exist for inhalation and dermal exposures, which are highly relevant human exposure routes. This evidence map provides a foundation for future systematic reviews and noncancer hazard assessments of PCB mixtures and for strategic planning of research to inform areas of greater uncertainty.
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 | 0.051 | 0.186 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.063 | 0.032 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".