The human health effects of unconventional oil and gas (UOG) chemical exposures: a scoping review of the toxicological literature
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Many chemicals associated with unconventional oil and natural gas (UOG) are known toxicants, leading to health concerns about the effects of UOG. Our objective was to conduct a scoping review of the toxicological literature to assess the effects of UOG chemical exposures in models relevant to human health. We searched databases for primary research studies published in English or French between January 2000 and June 2023 on UOG-related toxicology studies. Two reviewers independently screened abstracts and full texts to determine inclusion. Seventeen studies met our study inclusion criteria. Nine studies used solely in vitro models, while six conducted their investigation solely in animal models. Two studies incorporated both types of models. Most studies used real water samples impacted by UOG or lab-made mixtures of UOG chemicals to expose their models. Most in vitro models used human cells in monocultures, while all animal studies were conducted in rodents. All studies detected significant deleterious effects associated with exposure to UOG chemicals or samples, including endocrine disruption, carcinogenicity, behavioral changes and metabolic alterations. Given the plausibility of causal relationships between UOG chemicals and adverse health outcomes highlighted in this review, future risk assessment studies should focus on measuring exposure to UOG chemicals in human populations.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it