dataesr/scientific-paragraphs-categorization huggingface dataset:
2. Data and methodologies 2. 1. Methodology of data collection for supporting information for the assessment 2. 1. 1. Collection and selection of evidence (search strategy, eligibility criteria) for supporting information A literature search was carried out for scientific evidence for the Sections 1. 3 (Supporting information for the assessment), 3. 3. 1 (Occurrence data on food and feed reported in the available literature) and 3. 4 (Food and feed processing). The collected scientific evidence in these sections, used as background information for the assessment and for contributing data for the exposure assessment (Section 3. 3. 1), was limited to the most relevant information identified by the experts of the CONTAM Panel Working Group (WG) on Fusarium toxins. A search for recent reviews was conducted to identify scientific publications dealing with methods of analysis, chemistry, formation in food, exposure and occurrence in food and feed.
The literature search was performed in February 2017 and October 2017 for updated information. Web of Science, 8  PubMed 9  and Embase 10  were identified as databases appropriate for retrieving literature for the present evaluation using the word 'diacetoxyscirpenol' as the key term word ('DAS' was not used as a keyword since it is the acronym of many other unrelated words). The references resulting from the literature search were imported and saved using a software package (EndNote 11  ), which allows effective management of references and citations. Additionally, reviews and relevant scientific evaluations by national or international bodies were considered for the current risk assessment, i. e. JECFA (2016). When relevant papers were identified during the risk assessment process (e. g.
Appraisal of evidence for supporting information The inclusion of studies for the Sections 1. 3 (Supporting information for the assessment), and 3. 4 (Food and feed processing) was based on consideration by the expert judgement of the CONTAM WG on Fusarium toxins on the extent to which the study was informative and relevant for the assessment and taking account of study quality considerations. With regard to the Section 3. 3. 1 (Occurrence data on food and feed reported in the available literature), the appraisal and reporting of selected data used for the exposure assessment were in compliance with the quality requirements of EFSA for the occurrence data (see Section 2. 3).
2. 2. Methodology of data collection for hazard identification and characterisation 2. 2. 1. Collection and selection of evidence (search strategy, eligibility criteria) for hazard identification and characterisation A literature search was conducted in scientific databases aimed at identifying relevant studies published in the open scientific literature and in scientific peer-reviewed journals until 6 February 2017. The collection of scientific studies available in the public domain was done by searching scientific literature databases (Web of Science, PubMed and Embase) using the word 'diacetoxyscirpenol' as the key term word ('DAS' was not used as a keyword since it is the acronym of many other unrelated words). The search aimed to retrieve as many studies as possible that might be relevant for hazard identification and hazard characterisation of DAS.
Appraisal of evidence for hazard identification and characterisation The retrieved evidence was reviewed by the CONTAM WG on Fusarium toxins and has been used for this assessment as considered relevant by expert judgement. Any limitations noted by the WG in the evidence used for the risk assessment of DAS in food and feed are described in this scientific opinion. Selection of the scientific papers considered study quality and the extent to which the study was relevant (e. g. sufficient details on the methodology, performance and outcome of the study, information on dosing and route of administration and details of reporting). The amount of available data on DAS for different sections of the assessment varied greatly. In a first step, only those data from which it could clearly be concluded that the adverse effects in experimental and farm and companion animals were associated with an oral exposure to DAS alone were included in the sections on hazard characterisation of humans and farm and companion animals.
Data collection and validation Following an European Commission mandate to EFSA, a call for annual collection of chemical contaminant occurrence data in food and feed, including DAS, was issued by the former EFSA Dietary and Chemical Monitoring Unit (now DATA Unit) in December 2010 with a closing date of 1 October of each year. European national authorities and similar bodies, research institutions, academia, food business operators and other stakeholders were invited to submit analytical data on DAS in food and feed. The data submission to EFSA followed the requirements of the EFSA Guidance on Standard Sample Description for  Food and Feed (EFSA, 2010a) ; occurrence data were managed following the EFSA standard operational procedures on 'Data collection and validation' and on 'Data analysis of food consumption and occurrence data'.
In the data validation phase, data identified as suspect samples were excluded from the present analysis. Suspect samples are usually samples taken from the same site as a consequence of evidence or suspicion of contamination, and are often taken as a follow-up of demonstrated non-compliance with legislation. Some of the remaining samples may also have been collected in a more targeted way (i. e. selective sampling, convenient sampling) (see also  Section 2. 3. 2). Data on DAS in food and feed available in the EFSA database from 2000 onwards to the end of December 2017 were used for the present assessment. Data received after this date were not included in the data set used for further evaluation for this opinion. In addition to the occurrence data collected from the Member States within the call for data, the CONTAM Panel also searched the published literature for occurrence data of DAS in food and feed for possible inclusion as additional data in the occurrence data sets submitted to EFSA within the call for data and to be used for the exposure assessment.
Food consumption The EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database (Comprehensive Database) provides a compilation of existing national information on food consumption at individual level. It was first built in 2010  (EFSA, 2011a; Huybrechts et al. , 2011; Merten et al. , 2011)  ≥ 10 years to < 18 years old Adults: ≥ 18 years to < 65 years old Elderly: ≥ 65 years to < 75 years old Very elderly: ≥ 75 years old Four additional surveys provided information on specific population groups: 'Pregnant women' (≥ 15 years to ≤ 45 years old, Latvia; 17 years old to 46 years old, Portugal) and 'Lactating women' (≥ 28 years to ≤ 39 years old, Greece; 18 years old to 45 years old, Estonia). For chronic exposure assessment, food consumption data were available from 53 different dietary surveys carried out in 22 different European countries.
When for one particular country and age class two different dietary surveys were available, only the most recent one was used. This resulted in a total of 38 dietary surveys selected to estimate chronic dietary exposure. For the acute assessment, recent food consumption data was available for 43 surveys of 25 countries. In a separate Excel document, Annex A_Table 3, these dietary surveys and the number of subjects available for the acute and chronic exposure assessment are described. The food consumption data gathered by EFSA in the Comprehensive Database are the most complete and detailed data currently available in the EU. Consumption data were collected using single or repeated 24-or 48-h dietary recalls or dietary records covering from 3 to 7 days per subject. Because of the differences in the methods used for data collection, direct country-to-country comparisons can be misleading.
Acute dietary exposure Acute dietary exposure to DAS was estimated using a probabilistic approach. For calculating acute dietary exposure to DAS, food consumption and body weight data at the individual level were accessed in the Comprehensive Database. The acute dietary exposure to DAS was calculated for each reporting day, since individual meals are recorded for only a few countries in the consumption database. The preferred option is, therefore, to use individual days of consumption. Days of consumption offer a conservative estimate of the exposure, since it will sum the contribution of all meals during the same day. Acute exposure was assessed for each reporting day by multiplying the total consumption amount for each food category by an occurrence level randomly drawn among individual results available for that food category.
Chronic dietary exposure As suggested by the EFSA Working Group on Food Consumption and Exposure (EFSA, 2011a), dietary surveys with only 1 day per subject were not considered for chronic exposure as they are not adequate to assess repeated exposure. Similarly, subjects who participated only 1 day in the dietary studies, when the protocol prescribed more reporting days per individual, were also excluded for the chronic exposure assessment. Not all countries provided consumption information for all age groups, and in some cases the same country provided more than one consumption survey. For calculating chronic dietary exposure to DAS, food consumption and body weight data at the individual level were accessed in the Comprehensive Database. Occurrence data and consumption data were linked at the relevant FoodEx level.
3. 2. Consideration of critical effects and identification of reference points The CONTAM Panel noted that the human risk of DAS in food had not been assessed by EFSA previously and therefore reviewed all available data from studies conducted in experimental animals and humans as described in Section 3. 1. No oral chronic toxicity studies were identified in experimental animals and only few subacute oral toxicity studies were found in rats and guinea pigs, treated over a period of 5 or 4 weeks at the dose (s) of 1 mg/kg bw per day and 0. 6-1. 6 mg/kg bw per day, respectively. The Panel considered the database of these oral studies insufficient for the derivation of a RP for the human hazard characterisation. In a next step, the CONTAM Panel noted that the selection of the starting dose in phase I clinical trials was based on the outcome of preclinical studies in dogs and monkeys.
To mimic different clinical scenarios, DAS was administrated in these studies repeatedly via i. v. (weekly administration or for five consecutive days every two weeks, eventually repeated a few times) at doses ranging from 0. 016 to 2 mg DAS/kg bw per day in dogs and 0. 125 to 1 mg DAS/kg bw per day in monkeys. Dose-dependent emesis, haematotoxicity and myelotoxicity (see  Section 3. 1. 4. 2, Table 5)  were observed. The CONTAM Panel considered that this database in dogs and monkeys was too limited to be used for the derivation of a RP for the human hazard characterisation. By contrast human data from clinical studies (summarised in Section 3. 1. 7) were considered by the CONTAM Panel as relevant, consistent and sufficiently informative to establish HBGV for both acute and chronic exposure of humans.
In addition, the Panel noted that the adverse health effects in phase I clinical studies were observed usually within less than 3-6 months (i. e. about 3-8 treatment cycles using intermittent dosing regimens). Taking into account the limited duration of the exposure and the relatively limited number of patients exposed in the phase I studies used for the determination of the RP for chronic exposure above, the Panel decided to apply an additional UF of 10 to adjust for those limitations. Considering the range of factors (2-10) suggested for the extrapolation from short-term to chronic studies by different agencies (EFSA Scientific Committee, 2012) and accounting for the type of human clinical phase I data available, the CONTAM Panel noted that the use of a factor of 10 to account for these above-mentioned limitations should be considered as conservative approach in the hazard characterisation of human chronic exposure.
Food Twenty-three publications could be identified, which contained relevant information about the occurrence of DAS in food grains and food products, marketed in Europe and sampled from 2000 onwards (Appendix C). Data from previous years were not considered, due to limitations in the performance of the analytical methods used before 2000 and to ascertain a representative picture, because changes in environmental conditions and agricultural practices might have influenced DAS formation by Fusarium species (this also holds true for Section 3. 3. 1. 2). With few exceptions, LC/MS or GC/MS was used as analytical technique to determine DAS. The publications contained data from 12 studies on DAS in food grains and from 13 studies on DAS in food products. Altogether 5562 analytical data on occurrence of DAS were reported.
Because the DAS concentrations reported for brewed coffee were inconsistent with the DAS concentrations reported for commercial roasted coffee, the authors were contacted for explanation and further details. Since this did not yield the required information, the literature data on DAS in brewed coffee were not accepted for inclusion in the EFSA database for exposure assessment. In summary, literature data about DAS in food grains and food products show that DAS has been reported in the literature to occur at relatively low incidences and concentrations in grains and grain products, while DAS has also been found to occur in coffee.
Occurrence data submitted to EFSA From 2000 onwards to December 2017, 20,061 analytical results of food and feed with analytical data on DAS were available in the EFSA database. During the data cleaning process, data providers were contacted to clarify a number of possible inconsistencies which were identified during the data check. The following modifications were made to the initial data set based on the feedback received: • The product description of a number of records allowed a more accurate FoodEx classification. In these cases, the samples were reclassified to a more specific, detailed level. • 56 samples reported as 'suspect sampling' were not taken into account in the current assessment. • Results of samples reported to be analysed by the ELISA method (n = 10) were not considered sufficiently reliable to be included in the assessment.
• 1,152 analytical results were found to be duplicate submission and were disregarded. • 1,409 analytical results were submitted with misreported parameter code and therefore they were excluded from the assessment. • One sample on unspecified feed terms was disregarded from the assessment as it was not possible to identify which feedstuff was analysed. The cleaned database contained 17,433 samples provided by national authorities from Finland, Germany, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom (UK) for food (n =15,485) and France, Germany, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden and the UK for feed (n = 1,948).
Food occurrence data used for the assessment Altogether, including the results submitted to EFSA by Member States and the results extracted from the published literature 15,786 analytical results were available for food from 10 European countries (Table  13 ). Detailed list of food categories and analytical results on FoodEx levels 2 and 3 is shown in Annex A, Table  1A  and 1B respectively. All analytical results shown in the table were expressed on whole weight basis, thus no conversion had to be applied. The origin of the samples was not always the European country who reported the data, i. e. the data set also contained samples originating from North and South America, Africa, Asia and Australia. The LODs/LOQs of the DAS data from the EFSA database and the scientific literature data varied between laboratories and food matrices (i.
Feed occurrence data used for the assessment Altogether, including the results submitted to EFSA by Member States and the results extracted from the published literature 2,098 analytical results were available for feed from seven European countries (Table  14 ). The detailed list of feed categories and analytical results on levels 2 and 3 is shown in Annex A, Table  2A  and 2B , respectively. Analytical results expressed on whole weight basis were transformed to 88% dry matter (DM) basis, thus in the annex tables all the presented data is expressed in 88% DM basis. The LODs/LOQs of the DAS data from the EFSA database and the scientific literature data varied between laboratories and feed matrices (i. e. LOD minimum-maximum 0. 1-50 lg/kg, mean 10 l/kg; LOQ minimum-maximum 0. 1-100 lg/kg, mean 23 lg/kg).
Animal health risk characterisation Because of the limited knowledge on the effects of DAS on farm and companion animals and on the absence of a comprehensive database on feed consumption by livestock in the EU, it has not been possible to properly assess the risk of DAS for animal health. However the exposure estimates at the LB and UB concentrations for DAS in diets have been estimated for the most relevant farm livestock and companion animal categories, based on expected feed intakes and example diets. Those have been compared with the species specific overall LOAELs/ NOAELs for pigs, poultry and dogs (see Table  20 ). With this aim the estimates of dietary exposure to DAS were expressed as concentration in diet (lg/kg DM), exposure per day and exposure per kg bw per day, see Tables  16 17 18 19.
Regarding the exposure of farm and companion animals through feed consumption, only data on the major cereal grains (wheat, barley, oats, and maize), and limited data for maize silage, were available to assess exposure. As cereal by-products are widely used for animal feeding, the absence of data on DAS concentrations in these products led to a likely underestimation of exposure. A large variety of feed materials and forages are used to formulate diets for farm and companion animals in Europe, and the lack of information on levels of DAS in these feeds added to the overall uncertainty of the estimates of animal exposure. The Panel also noted that the database of DAS was for some animals too scarce to estimate the high exposure at the 95th percentile, in particular for dairy cows and beef cattle and growing/fattening pigs.
• Although in vivo studies on the toxicokinetics of DAS in farm animals were rare and not all relevant parameters were determined, a rapid ADME was generally shown. The main systemic metabolites were determined as 15-MAS and SCT. In pigs, a large portion of orally administered DAS could be found in faeces, mainly as deepoxidised SCT. • In chickens, DAS was rapidly absorbed from the GI tract, extensively metabolised and excreted as 15-MAS and 7-OH-DAS in faeces and in urine • No data were available for ruminants, horses, dogs and cats, and farmed rabbits, mink and fish. • There was insufficient evidence to conclude on the transfer of DAS from feed to food of animal origin.
Adverse health effects and derivation of human health based guidance values • Based on the conclusions on the genotoxicity and the MoA of DAS, the CONTAM Panel decided to establish HBGV for both the acute and chronic exposure of DAS to humans. • The Panel concluded that the database of the oral studies on rats and guinea pigs and the i. v. studies in dogs and monkey was insufficient for the identification of a RP for the human hazard characterisation. For both acute and chronic hazard characterisation, data from clinical studies in patients treated by i. v. administration of DAS (anguidine) for cancer were used. • The data from experimental and farm animals suggest almost complete absorption following oral administration. The Panel therefore under a conservative approach considered an equivalent bioavailability after oral exposure and i.
At equal or higher doses, reduction of body weight gain, decreased eggs production and decreased fertility were other adverse effects observed in various studies in different poultry species. • No data were available on the oral exposure of dogs. Emesis and haematotoxicity were observed following i. v. administration. Assuming equivalent bioavailability and systemic toxicity of DAS following i. v. and oral administration, the CONTAM Panel identified NOAELs of 0. 031 and 0. 016 mg/kg bw per day for acute and chronic toxicity, respectively. • No toxicity data suitable for hazard characterisation of DAS were identified for ruminants, farmed rabbits, farmed fish, farmed mink, horses and cats. In order to obtain an indication on the risk of DAS in these species, the CONTAM Panel considered the LOAEL of 0.
Details on how the Comprehensive Database is used are published in the Guidance of EFSA (EFSA, 2011a). The latest version of the Comprehensive Database updated in 2018 contains results from a total of 60 different dietary surveys carried out in 25 different Member States covering 119,458 individuals. Within the dietary studies, subjects are classified in different age classes as follows: Infants: < 12 months old Toddlers: ≥ 12 months to < 36 months old Other children: ≥ 36 months to < 10 years old Adolescents:.
, 2015). The question whether the SAA is a typical secular variations characteristic or, instead, a unique geomagnetic phenomenon is yet to be tested. Equivalently, it is not fully understood if rates and amplitudes of secular variations measured during the past few centuries  (Jackson et al. , 2000)  also represent the characteristic behavior of the geomagnetic field in earlier periods. To fill these gaps in knowledge there is a growing need for reliable and precise paleomagnetic datasets in sub-millennial temporal resolution from periods preceding direct measurements of the geomagnetic field. Archaeomagnetic data from in-situ archaeological structures, such as ovens, furnaces, kilns, and burnt buildings provide an excellent opportunity to capture the direction of the ancient field. When these structures cooled from high temperatures they acquired thermoremanent magnetization (TRM) parallel to the ambient field, thus preserving an instantaneous recording of the ancient field.
In many cases, the age of the TRM can be precisely dated using radiocarbon, historical constraints, archaeological correlation, indicative pottery, coins, or a combination of these methods. In this perspective, the long, continuous, well-studied archaeological record of Israel offers a unique opportunity for archaeomagnetic research. The global role of archaeomagnetic data from Israel is illustrated in Figure  1A , which shows a map of the published archaeomagnetic directional data available in the GEOMAGIA50 database  (Korhonen et al. , 2008; Brown et al. , 2015)  from the past four millennia. Our study area is located in an important geographic area that extends the densely scattered data from Europe to the southeast. To date, only several archaeomagnetic directions from Israel were published in journal articles  (Aitken and Hawley, 1967; Segal et al.
Dots on the world map show locations of all the paleomagnetic data from archaeological and volcanic sources from the past four millennia available in the GEOMAGIA50 database  (Korhonen et al. , 2008; Brown et al. , 2015). The enlarged map shows locations of archaeomagnetic sites that passed the acceptance criteria in Table  2  and listed in Table  3. Symbols and colors are as in Figure  3 , where closed symbols show data from this study and open symbols show data from  Segal (2003). Locations of sedimentary cores data shown in Figure  4  are shown with asterisks with the same color code as in Figure  4. for all sites, except those of  Segal (2003)  from which we do not have the original measurement data. The latter results in a possible declination offset of the  Segal (2003)  dataset by 2-3 degrees.