Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite a large body of evidence demonstrating that the visual system is an important target for organic solvent toxicity in adults, little attention has been devoted to the visual functioning of children with prenatal solvent exposure. The aims of the current study were (1) to evaluate prospectively the impact of prenatal solvent exposure on selective aspects of infant visual functioning using visual evoked potential (VEP) techniques, (2) to examine potential dose-response relationships, and (3) to correlate deficits in vision with performance on the Mullen Scales of Early Learning administered between 14 and 24 months of age. Studied were 21 infants born to women who were exposed occupationally to solvents during pregnancy and 27 non-exposed infants. Mothers and their infants were recruited during pregnancy through the Motherisk Program, an antenatal counseling service in Toronto. In addition, 2 children born to a mother who abused volatile inhalants were examined as reference cases for dose-effect data. A sweep VEP technique was used to assess contrast sensitivity and grating acuity by presenting sinusoidal gratings that "swept" across a range of contrasts and spatial frequencies. A transient VEP technique was used to assess responses to equiluminant chromatic- and luminance-modulated sinusoidal gratings presented in pattern onset-offset format. Exposure level was estimated from questionnaire data obtained during pregnancy. Testers were masked to exposure status. Results showed a significant reduction in contrast sensitivity at low spatial frequencies in solvent-exposed infants compared to control infants (P = .001). Infants with high level exposure had significantly lower acuity than those with low exposure, suggesting evidence of a dose-response relation. Regarding colour vision, 26.3% of infants in the exposed group versus 0% in the control group produced abnormal VEP responses to the red-green stimulus (P
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".