MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990054674 · doi:10.1039/b507749d

The study of age influence on human bone lead metabolism by using a simplified model and X-ray fluorescence data

2005· article· en· W1990054674 on OpenAlexaff
Huiling Nie, David R. Chettle, Colin E. Webber, José Brito, J. M. O’Meara, Fiona E. McNeill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Monitoring · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphHamilton Health SciencesToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcMaster University Medical CentreMcMaster University
FundersUniversity of Birmingham
KeywordsLead (geology)CalcaneusBone remodelingSkeleton (computer programming)ChemistryCortical boneTrabecular boneOsteoporosisAnatomyInternal medicineMedicineSurgeryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Long term lead metabolism in the human body has never been fully understood due to the lack of human data in this area. The technological improvement of bone lead measurement systems has made bone lead data of substantial populations available. In this study, a set of X-ray fluorescence bone lead data was used to test Leggett's lead metabolism model (R. W. Leggett, Environ. Health Perspect., 1993a, 101, 598-616), especially the model of metabolism in bone. The data set includes the bone lead concentration of 539 occupationally exposed workers, of whom 327 were measured twice in five years. The bone lead concentrations of both cortical bone (tibia) and trabecular bone (calcaneus) were obtained by Cd-109 gamma-ray induced XRF measurement. The histories of blood lead concentration for these workers were used to regulate the input file of the model. The results show that the bone lead concentrations predicted by Leggett's model greatly underestimate the measured values, especially for older workers. This data set was then organized into five age groups. A new simplified model was applied to estimate the lead transfer rates between blood and lead compartments for these age groups. The original transfer rates and the new transfer rates are compared, and the differences are discussed. When the transfer rates derived from measured bone lead data were put into the input file of the model to replace the existing parameters, the predicted values were much closer to the measured values for both cortical bone and trabecular bone.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations13
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental MonitoringSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207