Historical documentation of lead toxicity prior to the 20th century in English literature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lead is a heavy metal that remains a persistent environmental toxin. Although there have been a substantial number of reviews published on the health effects of lead, these reviews have predominantly focused on recent publications and rarely look at older, more historical articles. Old documents on lead can provide useful insight in establishing the historical context of lead usage and its modes of toxicity. The objective of this review is to explore historical understandings and uses of lead prior to the 20th century. One hundred eighty-eight English language articles that were published before the year 1900 were included in this review. Major themes in historical documentation of lead toxicology include lead's use in medical treatments, symptoms of lead poisoning, treatments for lead poisoning, occupational lead poisonings, and lead contamination in food and drinking water. The results of this review indicate that lead's usage was widespread throughout the 19th century, and its toxic properties were well-known. Common symptoms of lead poisoning and suggested treatments were identified during this time period. This review provides important insight into the knowledge and uses of lead before the 20th century and can serve as a resource for researchers looking at the history of lead.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".