The Risk Factors of Child Lead Poisoning in China: A Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To investigate the risk factors of child lead poisoning in China. METHODS: A document retrieval was performed using MeSH (Medical subject heading terms) and key words. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to assess the quality of the studies, and the pooled odd ratios with a 95% confidence interval were used to identify the risk factors. We employed Review Manager 5.2 and Stata 10.0 to analyze the data. Heterogeneity was assessed by both the Chi-square and I² tests, and publication bias was evaluated using a funnel plot and Egger's test. RESULTS: Thirty-four articles reporting 13,587 lead-poisoned children met the inclusion criteria. Unhealthy lifestyle and behaviors, environmental pollution around the home and potential for parents' occupational exposure to lead were risk factors of child lead poisoning in the pooled analyses. Our assessments yielded no severe publication biases. CONCLUSIONS: Seventeen risk factors are associated with child lead poisoning, which can be used to identify high-risk children. Health education and promotion campaigns should be designed in order to minimize or prevent child lead poisoning in China.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".