MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416947530 · doi:10.1038/s41597-025-06194-z

A Unified Cellular Toxic Potency Dataset of PM2.5 across Chemicals, Emission Sources, and Regions in China

2025· article· en· W4416947530 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Xiu, Di Wu, Qing Li

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Data · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersFudan UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsHuman healthRisk assessmentHealth riskResource (disambiguation)ChinaParticulatesHealth risk assessmentBioassayAir quality index

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exposure to fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) is a leading global health risk factor. Effective mitigation demands a multidimensional understanding that integrates chemical, source and region-level differences in PM 2.5 toxicities relevant to human health. We present a standardized in vitro cellular assay dataset characterizing PM 2.5 toxic potencies across emission sources, chemical constituents and atmospheric environments. Real-world PM 2.5 samples from 23 major anthropogenic sources, covering industrial, transportation and residential sectors, were evaluated for cytotoxicity and oxidative stress potency, identifying key sources driving PM 2.5 -induced health risks. Toxic potency-adjusted concentrations of bioactive PM 2.5 components, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, elemental carbon, metals, and non-metal species, were quantified to attribute overall PM 2.5 toxicity to specific chemicals. Furthermore, the toxic potencies of ambient PM 2.5 collected from selected urban and rural areas in China were identified, enabling the development of evaluation metrics for quantifying regional inequalities in PM 2.5 health risks. This dataset establishes a universal toxicity benchmark for standardized comparisons of PM 2.5 health impacts, providing a valuable resource for exposure assessment, source prioritization, and air quality risk evaluation.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific DataSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207