A Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies of the Association Between Chronic Occupational Exposure to Lead and Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The association between occupational exposure to lead and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) was examined through systematic review and meta-analyses of relevant epidemiological studies and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. METHODS: Relevant studies were searched in multiple bibliographic databases through September 2013; additional articles were tracked through PubMed until submission. All records were screened in DistillerSR, and the data extracted from included articles were synthesized with meta-analysis. RESULTS: The risk of developing ALS among individuals with a history of exposure to lead was almost doubled (odds ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.39 to 2.36) on the basis of nine included case-control studies with specific lead exposure information, with no apparent heterogeneity across included studies (I = 14%). The attributable risk of ALS because of exposure to lead was estimated to be 5%. CONCLUSIONS: Previous exposure to lead may be a risk factor for ALS.
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 | 0.018 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.016 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".