MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791857769 · doi:10.1016/j.toxrep.2018.02.015

Heavy metal contamination of prenatal vitamins

2018· article· en· W2791857769 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gerry Schwalfenberg, Ilia Rodushkin, Stephen J. Genuis

Bibliographic record

VenueToxicology Reports · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOffspringMedicineEnvironmental healthArsenicGestationDietary Reference IntakeToxicologyPregnancyTolerable daily intakePhysiologyBiologyChemistryInternal medicineNutrient

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prenatal vitamins are often consumed daily during gestation and postnatally for up to 18-24 months with the belief that supplementation achieves better outcomes. Detrimental effects of gestational exposure to adverse chemical agents are gathering increasing attention. This study was designed to assess toxic element contamination in prenatal supplements. Twenty-six commonly used prenatal vitamin brands including one prescription brand were collected from Canadian health-food outlets and pharmacies, and tested for toxic element contamination. Results were compared to established endpoints. All samples contained Lead with average amounts being (0.535 μgm), 20/51 samples exceeded established standards for lead toxicity (0.50 μgm/day), with one sample yielding 4. μgm/day. Three samples registered inorganic arsenic levels above acceptable limits. Cadmium levels did not exceed current standards. Toxic elements such as Aluminum, Nickel, Titanium and Thallium were detected in all samples. Cumulative intake of prenatal supplement over many months may constitute a significant source of toxic element exposure to the mother and offspring. With several samples exceeding known standards for gestational toxic element exposure, guidelines for routine monitoring and reporting are required. In keeping with recommendations from the International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynecology, industry regulation would be welcomed to protect expectant mothers and their vulnerable offspring.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.106

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueToxicology ReportsSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207