Direct Comparison of the Impacts of Bisphenol A, Bisphenol F, and Bisphenol S in a Male Rat 28-Day Oral Exposure Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although Bisphenol A (BPA) is still used in consumer products, concerns about its toxicity led to the adoption of structurally related replacement products such as Bisphenol F (BPF) and Bisphenol S (BPS). Unfortunately, comparing the biological responses to BPA and BPA substitutes in vivo can be challenging, as the available information is often derived from different studies using various animal strains and experimental protocols. To address this issue, we directly compared the impacts of BPA, BPF, and BPS in the same in vivo exposure study. Briefly, 8-week-old male Fischer rats were exposed to BPA, BPF, or BPS (at five different doses) and to 17α-ethinylestradiol (positive control for estrogenicity) by gavage for 28 consecutive days. Rat health, dietary intakes, and weight gains were monitored, 24-hour urine samples were collected, and blood and tissues were harvested at the terminal necropsy. The impacts of BPA, BPF, and BPS on rat weight gains, organ weights and histology, liver enzymatic activities, hematology, clinical chemistry, and serum hormone levels were relatively modest and mostly limited to the highest doses administered. However, bisphenol cross-contamination observed in urine samples from the vehicle control group may have interfered with the evaluation of their effects at lower doses. Although BPA, BPF, and BPS exposures all shared similarities with the 17α-ethinylestradiol positive control group, their impacts on serum hormone levels and endocrine-responsive tissues also presented noticeable differences. This suggests that BPA, BPF, and BPS may interfere with endocrine functions through slightly different molecular mechanisms.
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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".