MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7056022553

Effects of di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate and four of its metabolites on steroidogenesis in MA-10 cells

2009· other· en· W7056022553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada) · 2009
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMagnetic confinement fusion research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhthalateToxicityPlasticizerLeydig cellCellReproductive toxicityMetabolismIn vitroMicrosomeDiethyl phthalate
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plasticizers aid in processing, and impart flexibility to plastics. Their broad use and tendency to leach out of polymers have rendered them ubiquitous in the environment. Phthalate plasticizers, in particular di-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), are known to cause male reproductive tract defects in animal models. It has been assumed that DEHP metabolite, mono-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (MEHP), is the active compound, however the bioactivity of metabolites such as 2-ethylhexanol, 2-ethylhexanal and 2-ethylhexanoic acid, has not been thoroughly investigated. The aim of this study was to test the effects of these compounds in a mouse Leydig tumour cell line, MA-10 cells. DEHP, MEHP and 2-ethylhexanal decreased cell viability, as well as steroidogenic potential as quantified by an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and gene expression analysis. Interestingly, 2-ethylhexanal was the most potent steroidogenic disruptor, which offered an intriguing contribution to the search for the mechanism(s) of phthalate toxicity and raised doubts that MEHP is the single active metabolite.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.154
Teacher spread0.151 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLibrary and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)→Same topicMagnetic confinement fusion research→French-language works237,207→