MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393995080 · doi:10.1093/nutrit/nuae032

Mycotoxins and bone growth: a review of the literature on associations between xenobiotic exposure and bone growth and development

2024· review· en· W4393995080 on OpenAlexaff
Rukshan Mehta, Anthony Wenndt

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationCentre for Global Health ResearchHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMycotoxinBiologyMicronutrientAflatoxinBone developmentPhysiologyMedicineBiotechnologyPathologyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mycotoxins are secondary metabolites of fungi that are known to be associated with linear growth faltering because of their impact on inflammation, intestinal damage, inhibition of protein synthesis, and micronutrient absorption. In this narrative review, we aim to extend this analysis to further explore associations between mycotoxins (aflatoxins, ochratoxins, trichothecenes including deoxynivalenol, T-2 toxin, and fumonisins) and long-bone growth, particularly during the saltatory periods of development. Linear growth is a direct function of skeletal development and long-bone growth. We therefore explored biological pathways and mechanisms of impact of these toxins in both animal and human studies, in addition to the epidemiology literature (post-2020). Given what is known of the effects of individual and combinations of mycotoxins based on the animal literature, we have identified a need for further research and examination of how these toxins and exposures may be studied in humans to elucidate the downstream impact on bone-related biomarkers and anthropometric indices used to identify and predict stunting in population-based studies.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.753
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207