MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2162901699 · doi:10.1007/s11420-006-9000-9

How Much Calcium is in your Drinking Water? A Survey of Calcium Concentrations in Bottled and Tap Water and Their Significance for Medical Treatment and Drug Administration

2006· article· en· W2162901699 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simon Morr, Esteban Cuartas, Basil J. Alwattar, Joseph M. Lane

Bibliographic record

VenueHSS Journal® The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special Surgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and osteoporosis research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalciumTap waterChemistryBottled waterEnvironmental chemistryFiltration (mathematics)Mineral waterCalcium metabolismAnimal scienceEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental scienceMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Different forms of water vary in calcium content. High divalent ion (i.e., Ca(2+), Mg(2+), etc.) concentration is deleterious to the absorption and efficacy of the bisphosphonate group of drugs in osteoporosis treatment. Water with high calcium concentration may also present an alternate pathway of calcium administration. In either case, knowing the actual concentration is critical. HYPOTHESIS: The current paper is a surveillance study. We hypothesize that there is considerable variation in the calcium concentrations in the various water sources: tap water from US and Canadian cities of different regions and purified, spring, and mineral bottled waters. In addition, we hypothesize that the water filter removes a significant amount of minerals including calcium from the water. METHODOLOGY: Calcium concentrations in various city tap waters, as well as an assorted number of bottled waters, were determined through the direct inspection of scientific data. The effect of filtering was also determined by mineral analysis of mineral water directly before and after filtration. RESULT: The calcium concentration of water varies from 1 to 135 mg/L across the USA and Canada. Most spring waters were found to have a relatively low calcium concentration, with an average of 21.8 mg/L. Purified waters contain a negligible calcium concentration. Mineral waters, on the other hand, were generally found to contain higher calcium concentrations, an average of 208 mg/L of calcium. Filtration was found to remove a considerable amount of calcium from the water, removing 89% on average. CONCLUSION: Calcium concentration in water varied substantially from different sources in the USA and Canada. Bottled waters presented with concentrations of calcium covering a very large range. Certain tap and bottled waters present with concentrations of calcium sufficient to exhibit a deleterious effect on bisphosphonate treatment. Alternatively, certain waters may be used as a source of calcium that may provide over 40% of the recommended daily intake for calcium.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.484

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations84
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHSS Journal® The Musculoskeletal Journal of Hospital for Special SurgerySame topicBone health and osteoporosis researchFrench-language works237,207