Non-asbestiform elongate mineral particles and mesothelioma risk: Human and experimental evidence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The presentations in this session of the Monticello II conference were aimed at summarizing what is known about asbestiform and non-asbestiform elongate mineral particles (EMPs) and mesothelioma risks based on evidence from experimental and epidemiology studies. Dr. Case discussed case reports of mesothelioma over the last several decades. Dr. Taioli indicated that the epidemiology evidence concerning non-asbestiform EMPs is weak or lacking, and that progress would be limited unless mesothelioma registries are established. One exception discussed is that of taconite miners, who are exposed to grunerite. Drs. Mandel and Odo noted that studies of taconite miners in Minnesota have revealed an excess rate of mesothelioma, but the role of non-asbestiform EMPs in this excess incidence of mesothelioma is unclear. Dr. Becich discussed the National Mesothelioma Virtual Bank (NMVB), a virtual mesothelioma patient registry that includes mesothelioma patients' lifetime work histories, exposure histories, biospecimens, proteogenomic information, and imaging data that can be used in epidemiology research on mesothelioma. Dr. Bernstein indicated that there is a strong consensus that long, highly durable respirable asbestiform EMPs have the potential to cause mesothelioma, but there is continued debate concerning the biodurability required, and the dimensions (both length and diameter), the shape, and the dose associated with mesothelioma risk. Finally, Dr. Nel discussed how experimental studies of High Aspect Ratio Engineered Nanomaterials have clarified dimensional and durability features that impact disease risk, the impact of inflammation and oxidative stress on the epigenetic regulation of tumor suppressor genes, and the generation of immune suppressive effects in the mesothelioma tumor microenvironment. The session ended with a discussion of future research needs.
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 | 0.023 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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".