Reverse dosimetry modeling of toluene exposure concentrations based on biomonitoring levels from the Canadian health measures survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biomonitoring might provide useful estimates of population exposure to environmental chemicals. However, data uncertainties stemming from interindividual variability are common in large population biomonitoring surveys. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models might be used to account for age- and gender-related variability in internal dose. The objective of this study was to reconstruct air concentrations consistent with blood toluene measures reported in the third Canadian Health Measures Survey using reverse dosimetry PBPK modeling techniques. Population distributions of model’s physiological parameters were described based upon age, weight, and size for four subpopulations (12–19, 20–39, 40–59, and 60–79 years old). Monte Carlo simulations applied to PBPK modeling allowed converting the distributions of venous blood measures of toluene obtained from CHMS into related air levels. Based upon blood levels observed at the 50th, 90th and 95th percentiles, corresponding air toluene concentrations were estimated for teenagers aged 12–19 years as being, respectively, 0.009, 0.04 and 0.06 ppm. Similarly, values were computed for adults aged 20–39 years (0.007, 0.036, and 0.06 ppm), 40–59 years (0.007, 0.036 and 0.06 ppm) and 60–79 years (0.006, 0.022 and 0.04 ppm). These estimations are well below Health Canada’s maximum recommended chronic air guidelines for toluene. In conclusion, PBPK modeling and reverse dosimetry may be combined to help interpret biomonitoring data for chemical exposure in large population surveys and estimate the associated toxicological health risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".