MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Safety of Some Calcium Supplements Questioned

2009· review· en· W2167731304 on OpenAlexaff
Susan J. Whiting

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrition Reviews · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animals
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalciumOysterCalcium carbonateMedicineOsteoporosisChemistryToxicologyFood scienceBiologyEndocrinologyInternal medicineFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Optimal calcium intakes are desirable for prevention or treatment of osteoporosis, but the safety and efficacy of some calcium supplements used to achieve such intakes have been questioned. Lead contamination is not restricted to bone-meal and dolomite; significant amounts of lead, and also aluminum, have been found in calcium carbonate supplements labeled "oyster shell" or "natural source." While no evidence for in vivo toxicity has emerged, chronic use of these supplements may constitute unnecessary metal exposure.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.004

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations26
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrition ReviewsSame topicAluminum toxicity and tolerance in plants and animalsFrench-language works237,207