Comparison of in vitro Toxicities of 8-Prenylnaringenin, Tartrazine and 17β-Estradiol, Representatives of Natural and Synthetic Estrogens, in Rat and Human Hepatoma Cell Lines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Phytoestrogens have been praised for their beneficial health effects, whereas synthetic xenoestrogens have been connected to ailments. AIMS: To ascertain whether the toxicities of natural and synthetic estrogens differ, we examined the potent phytoestrogen 8-prenylnaringenin (8-PN), the common synthetic xenoestrogen tartrazine, and the physiological estrogen 17β-estradiol (E2). METHODS: These three compounds were tested for cytotoxicity, cell proliferation and genotoxicity in human HepG2 and rat H4IIE hepatoma cells. RESULTS: All three estrogens elicited cytotoxicity at high concentrations in both cell lines. They also inhibited cell proliferation, with E2 being the most effective. They all tended to increase micronuclei formation. CONCLUSION: Natural estrogens were no less toxic than a synthetic one.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".