Population variation in biomonitoring data for persistent organic pollutants (POPs)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundAustralian national biomonitoring for persistent organic pollutants (POPs) relies upon age-specific pooled serum samples to characterize central tendencies of concentrations but does not provide estimates of upper bound concentrations. This analysis compares population variation from biomonitoring datasets from the US, Canada, Germany, Spain, and Belgium to identify and test patterns potentially useful for estimating population upper bound reference values for the Australian population.MethodsArithmetic means and the ratio of the 95th percentile to the arithmetic mean (P95:mean) were assessed by survey for defined age subgroups for three polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs 138, 153, and 180), hexachlorobenzene (HCB), p,p-dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), 2,2',4,4' tetrabrominated diphenylether (PBDE 47), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS).ResultsArithmetic mean concentrations of each analyte varied widely across surveys and age groups. However, P95:mean ratios differed to a limited extent, with no systematic variation across ages. The average P95:mean ratios were 2.2 for the three PCBs and HCB; 3.0 for DDE; 2.0 and 2.3 for PFOA and PFOS, respectively. The P95:mean ratio for PBDE 47 was more variable among age groups, ranging from 2.7 to 4.8. The average P95:mean ratios accurately estimated age group-specific P95s in the Flemish Environmental Health Survey II and were used to estimate the P95s for the Australian population by age group from the pooled biomonitoring data.ConclusionsSimilar population variation patterns for POPs were observed across multiple surveys, even when absolute concentrations differed widely. These patterns can be used to estimate population upper bounds when only pooled sampling data are available. Quelle: http://www.sciencedirect.com/
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".