MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403709812 · doi:10.1139/er-2024-0055

Toxicity of crude oil: a systematic review of the acute impacts on Cnidaria

2024· review· en· W4403709812 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruna Cristina Ferreira Vasconcelos, Ralf Tarciso Silva Cordeiro, Paula Braga Gomes

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Reviews · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine Ecology and Invasive Species
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação de Amparo à Ciência e Tecnologia do Estado de PernambucoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
KeywordsCnidariaCrude oilJellyfishEnvironmental scienceHydrozoaEcologyBiologyPetroleum engineeringGeologyCoral

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cnidarians are ecosystem engineers that play a fundamental role in food webs. However, they are increasingly threatened by anthropogenic activities, such as oil spills, which can cause acute sublethal effects and in some cases, mortality. The literature on this theme is limited and fragmented, with diverse objectives and methodologies, making it challenging to identify consistent patterns and knowledge gaps. This article aims to provide a systematic review of the acute impacts of crude oil and petroleum hydrocarbons on members of the Phylum Cnidaria, to synthesize and integrate the available data. The research followed the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, and employed the search terms: “ crude oil” AND “acute” AND (Cnidaria OR coral), along with the names of each Cnidarian class. The search was restricted to articles published in English from 2013 to 2023, excluding studies that did not directly address the core topic. The number of records collected was relatively low, with only 30 articles identified from 20 studies. The highest number of publications occurred in 2022, and the USA was the most represented country. The Class Anthozoa, particularly corals (order Scleractinia), was the most studied. Research focused on the effects of crude oil on gametes, embryos, larvae, and adults, with most studies examining adult organisms. The majority (56.6%) utilized mixtures of crude oil hydrocarbons, while a smaller proportion (36.6%) focused on pure aromatic hydrocarbons. Most experiments employed water accommodated fractions (36.6%) and continuous flow system (20%). The most common exposure durations (30%) were 96 and 48 h, with exposure times ranging from 18 h to several days. There was significant variation in methodological approaches, underscoring the need for standardized protocols. Research on adult cnidarians primarily assessed health and morphology, lethality, genetic alterations, and symbiont efficiency. In contrast, studies on early life stages focused on lethality, larval metamorphosis, and settlement. Overall, the results indicate that responses vary considerably, particularly concerning exposure time and oil concentration, with sublethal effects at different levels. Further studies incorporating a broader range of species, novel approaches, and the combined effects of elevated temperature and UV radiation are crucial to advancing our understanding of oil impacts on cnidarians.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.006
Bibliometrics0.0120.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ReviewsSame topicMarine Ecology and Invasive SpeciesFrench-language works237,207