MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An International Pooled Analysis for Obtaining a Benchmark Dose for Environmental Lead Exposure in Children

2012· article· en· W1586816270 on OpenAlexaff
Esben Budtz–Jørgensen, Bruce P. Lanphear, Philippe Grandjean

Bibliographic record

VenueRisk Analysis · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
FundersEuropean Food Safety Authority
KeywordsLead exposureEnvironmental healthLead (geology)Benchmark (surveying)Lead poisoningEnvironmental scienceStatisticsComputer scienceMedicineGeographyMathematicsBiologyTelecommunicationsPsychiatryCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lead is a recognized neurotoxicant, but estimating effects at the lowest measurable levels is difficult. An international pooled analysis of data from seven cohort studies reported an inverse and supra-linear relationship between blood lead concentrations and IQ scores in children. The lack of a clear threshold presents a challenge to the identification of an acceptable level of exposure. The benchmark dose (BMD) is defined as the dose that leads to a specific known loss. As an alternative to elusive thresholds, the BMD is being used increasingly by regulatory authorities. Using the pooled data, this article presents BMD results and applies different statistical techniques in the analysis of multistudy data. The calculations showed only a limited variation between studies in the steepness of the dose-response functions. BMD results were quite robust to modeling assumptions with the best fitting models yielding lower confidence limits (BMDLs) of about 0.1-1.0 μ g/dL for the dose leading to a loss of one IQ point. We conclude that current allowable blood lead concentrations need to be lowered and further prevention efforts are needed to protect children from lead toxicity.

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)0.073
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.091
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0730.091
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.015
Bibliometrics0.0050.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations113
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRisk AnalysisSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207