METAL CONCENTRATION STUDY IN A POPULATION LIVING IN THE VICINITY OF AN OIL REFINERY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim is to evaluate the exposure of Slavonski Brod citizens to metals from the environment: lead, cadmium, mercury, arsenic, nickel, manganese and thallium.Concentrations of Pb, Cd, Hg, As, Ni, Mn and Tl were analyzed in the whole blood and/or serum, urine and hair of 40 examinees from Slavonski Brod.According to "wind rose" data and the vicinity of the oil refinery, examinees were divided in two groups: Group I with 20 examinees (17 females/3 males) and Group II with 20 examinees (13 females/7 males).Metals were analyzed using inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry.Analysis accuracy was confirmed with reference samples.The difference between the groups was tested using the Mann-Whitney U test.Reference values were taken from German commission for biomonitoring, biomonitoring studies with Canadian examinees, Mayo Medical Laboratories reference values, USA and London Pathology, and Laboratory Medicine from Canada.There was no difference in age between the groups (Group I: x = 48.2;SD ±15.2;Group II: x = 50.7;SD ± 21.7; z = -0.590;p = 0.555).Statistically significant differences were determined in As in blood (Group I: M = 2.10; Group II: M = 3.20; z = -3.414;p = 0.0006), in Tl in blood (Group I: M = 0.012; Group II: M = 0.021; z = -2.37;p = 0.018), in Pb in urine (Group I: M = 0.71; Group II: M = 1.20; z = -2.12;p = 0.034) and in Mn in urine (Group I: M = 0.19; Group II: M = 0.11; z = 2.04; p = 0.042).In Group I, one patient had elevated cadmium in hair (0.227 µg/g), the second had elevated arsenic in urine (78.73 µg/L), the third had elevated mercury in blood (16.53 µg/L) and hair (2021 µg/kg); in Group II, one had elevated lead in urine (6.88 µg/L) and hair (8.39 µg/g), the second had elevated cadmium in urine (3.11 µg/L), the third had elevated cadmium in blood (2.98 µg/L), the fourth had elevated lead in blood (171.9µg/L) and urine (20.1 µg/L), and the fifth had elevated lead in urine (10.01 µg/L).The conclusion of this study is that the differences between the two groups are within referent values and this study should be expanded with more subjects and more parameters.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".