MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392240898 · doi:10.1002/etc.5829

Anticoagulant Rodenticide Toxicity in Terrestrial Raptors: Tools to Estimate the Impact on Populations in North America and Globally

2024· article· en· W4392240898 on OpenAlexaffabout
John E. Elliott, Veronica Silverthorn, Simon G. English, Pierre Mineau, Sofi Hindmarch, Philippe J. Thomas, Sandi Lee, Victoria Bowes, Tony Redford, France Maisonneuve, Joseph C. Okoniewski

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Toxicology and Chemistry · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAnimal Ecology and Behavior Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of AgricultureSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British ColumbiaCarleton UniversityEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRodenticideToxicityBiologyZoologyEcologyGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Anticoagulant rodenticides (ARs) have caused widespread contamination and poisoning of predators and scavengers. The diagnosis of toxicity proceeds from evidence of hemorrhage, and subsequent detection of residues in liver. Many factors confound the assessment of AR poisoning, particularly exposure dose, timing and frequency of exposure, and individual and taxon-specific variables. There is a need, therefore, for better AR toxicity criteria. To respond, we compiled a database of second-generation anticoagulant rodenticide (SGAR) residues in liver and postmortem evaluations of 951 terrestrial raptor carcasses from Canada and the United States, 1989 to 2021. We developed mixed-effects logistic regression models to produce specific probability curves of the toxicity of ∑SGARs at the taxonomic level of the family, and separately for three SGARs registered in North America, brodifacoum, bromadiolone, and difethialone. The ∑SGAR threshold concentrations for diagnosis of coagulopathy at 0.20 probability of risk were highest for strigid owls (15 ng g−1) lower and relatively similar for accipitrid hawks and eagles (8.2 ng g−1) and falcons (7.9 ng g−1), and much lower for tytonid barn owls (0.32 ng g−1). These values are lower than those we found previously, due to compilation and use of a larger database with a mix of species and source locations, and also to refinements in the statistical methods. Our presentation of results on the family taxonomic level should aid in the global applicability of the numbers. We also collated a subset of 440 single-compound exposure events and determined the probability of SGAR-poisoning symptoms as a function of SGAR concentration, which we then used to estimate relative SGAR toxicity and toxic equivalence factors: difethialone, 1, brodifacoum, 0.8, and bromadiolone, 0.5. Environ Toxicol Chem 2024;43:988–998. © 2024 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada.

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)0.000
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.315
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.

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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Toxicology and ChemistrySame topicAnimal Ecology and Behavior StudiesFrench-language works237,207