Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a meta-analysis to systematically quantify the association between occupational exposure to aluminum and risk of Alzheimer disease (AD). METHODS: Electronic database searches were conducted up to March 2015 for controlled studies. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Three retrospective case-control studies, involving 1056 participants, met the criteria for inclusion. All studies used surrogate informants to ascertain exposure. Occupational aluminum exposure was not associated with AD (odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.59 to 1.68), even in sensitivity analysis excluding studies with low-quality assessment scores (odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.36 to 3.10). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the present meta-analysis do not support a causative role of aluminum in the pathogenesis of AD. Nevertheless, in the absence of prospective studies with more precise ascertainment of exposure, a role for aluminum cannot be definitively excluded.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 it