Comparison of serum and urine lead levels in opium addicts with healthy control group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Lead-contaminated opium is one of the new sources of lead exposure in our region. As far as the literature review is concerned, there are limited comparative studies about comparison of blood lead level (BLL) in addict patients with healthy controls. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare BLL and urine lead level (ULL) between opium addicts with the healthy control group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty opium addict subjects (mean age: 43 ± 10 years) as the patient group and 40 healthy subjects (mean age: 41 ± 9 years) as the control group participated. Three milliliter of whole blood and urine was obtained from both groups and lead level was assessed using atomic absorption spectrophotometry. RESULTS: The mean value of BLL in patient group was 7.14 ± 1.41 mcg/dL and that in the healthy control group was 5.42 ± 1.46 mcg/dL. The mean value of ULL was 2.62 ± 0.83 mcg/dL in the patient group and 2.50 ± 0.76 mcg/dL in the healthy control group.BLL was different in the two groups (p < 0.001), but ULL was not (p = 0.5). There was a significant correlation between BLL with duration of opium addiction in the patient group (r = -0.403, p = 0.01). BLL and ULL were significantly correlated in controls (r = 0.436, p = 0.005) and not in patients. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: It was observed that the BLL in opium addicts was significantly higher than that in the healthy control group. This can be due to use of adulterated opium with lead. Therefore, screening of blood lead concentration is helpful for opium-addict patients especially with nonspecific symptoms.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".