MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4320502597 · doi:10.1039/d2em00391k

Using membrane–water partition coefficients in a critical membrane burden approach to aid the identification of neutral and ionizable chemicals that induce acute toxicity below narcosis levels

2023· article· en· W4320502597 on OpenAlexaff
Steven T. J. Droge, Geoff Hodges, Mark Bonnell, Steve Gutsell, Jayne Roberts, Alexandre Teixeira, Elin L. Barrett

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science Processes & Impacts · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersUnilever
KeywordsAcute toxicityToxicityChemistryMacrophytePartition coefficientMembraneChromatographyToxicologyMyriophyllumMembrane permeabilityEnvironmental chemistryAquatic plantPharmacologyBiochemistryBiologyOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

), and non-target animal species (invertebrates and fish). For 21/29 herbicides, a TR >10 indicated a specific toxic mode of action other than narcosis for at least one of these aquatic primary producers. Fish and invertebrate TRs were mostly <10, particularly for neutral herbicides, but for acidic herbicides a TR >10 indicated specific adverse effects in non-target animals. The established critical membrane approach to derive the TR provides for useful contribution to the weight of evidence to bin a chemical as having a narcosis MoA or less likely to have acute toxicity caused by a more specific adverse effect pathway. After proper calibration, the chromatographic assay provides consistent and efficient experimental input for both neutral and ionizable chemicals to this approach.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science Processes & ImpactsSame topicEnvironmental Toxicology and EcotoxicologyFrench-language works237,207