Association between blood lead and blood pressure: Results from the Canadian Health Measures Survey (2007 to 2011).
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hypertension is the leading risk factor for cardiovascular disease, but its cause is not always known. Interest is increasing in the potential role of environmental chemicals, including lead. DATA AND METHODS: Data are from the first two cycles of the Canadian Health Measures Survey. Lead in whole blood (PbB), and systolic (SBP) and diastolic (DBP) blood pressure were measured and hypertension status was derived for 4,550 respondents aged 40 to 79. Linear regression estimated associations between PbB and SBP and DBP. Logistic regression estimated associations between PbB and hypertension. Adjusted least squares geometric means of PbB were estimated for hypertensive versus non-hypertensive individuals. RESULTS: Compared with non-hypertensive individuals, those with hypertension had higher average PbB levels, were older, more likely to be male, and more likely to have other hypertension risk factors (diabetes, family history of high blood pressure). In adjusted regression models, a modest association emerged between PbB levels and SBP among 40- to 54-year-olds, and between PbB levels and DBP for the overall population. No association emerged between PbB levels and hypertension prevalence. INTERPRETATION: A modest association was observed between blood lead levels and blood pressure, but not with hypertension, in Canadian adults aged 40 to 79.
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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".