MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383906909 · doi:10.1080/26395940.2023.2233699

In vitro toxicity assessment of atmospheric particulate matter on human lung and hepatic cells with agar membrane-based sampling and exposure strategy

2023· article· en· W4383906909 on OpenAlexaff
Si-Si Chen, Zhijie Tang, Zhao‐ming Cao, Hongjuan Chen, Lian Yi, Xin Hu, Hong‐zhen Lian, Weijuan Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Pollutants and Bioavailability · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersGovernment of Jiangsu ProvinceNatural Science Foundation of Jiangsu ProvinceNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsToxicityCytotoxicityExtraction (chemistry)In vitroParticulatesMembraneAgarChemistryMembrane filterChromatographyBiochemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In vitro toxicology research into the health effects of atmospheric particulate matter (PM) depends on the extraction of PM from filters. Previously, we proposed an efficient PM sampling and extraction method based on low-cost agar membrane and performed an exposure study with RAW264.7 macrophages. Here, we extended the application of this strategy, employing lung and hepatic cells, to validate its reliability and reproducibility. One traditional strategy using polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filter was adopted for comparison. Cytotoxicity and proteomics results showed that the PM extracted by two methods induced comparable toxicity to A549 and BEAS-2B cells, while the PM extracted from the agar membranes induced higher toxicity to HepG2 and HL7702 cells than that from the PTFE filters. The differences in the investigations might be associated with the cell's sensitivity to the extracted suspended particles. This work indicated the importance of assessing PM cytotoxicity from the perspective of extraction methods and cell lines.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.186
Threshold uncertainty score0.889

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.268 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Pollutants and BioavailabilitySame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207