MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of Residential Lead-Hazard Interventions on Childhood Blood Lead Concentrations and Neurobehavioral Outcomes

2018· article· en· W2889260135 on OpenAlexaff
Joseph M. Braun, Richard Hornung, Aimin Chen, Kim N. Dietrich, David E. Jacobs, Robert L. Jones, Jane Khoury, Stacey Liddy-Hicks, S. Philip Morgan, Suzette Báez Vanderbeek, Yingying Xu, Kimberly Yolton, Bruce P. Lanphear

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA Pediatrics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialHazard ratioPediatricsLead (geology)Lead exposureIntervention (counseling)Environmental healthPregnancyConfidence intervalPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Importance: Childhood lead exposure is associated with neurobehavioral deficits. The effect of a residential lead hazard intervention on blood lead concentrations and neurobehavioral development remains unknown. Objective: To determine whether a comprehensive residential lead-exposure reduction intervention completed during pregnancy could decrease residential dust lead loadings, prevent elevated blood lead concentrations, and improve childhood neurobehavioral outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This longitudinal, community-based randomized clinical trial of pregnant women and their children, the Health Outcomes and Measures of the Environment (HOME) Study, was conducted between March 1, 2003, and January 31, 2006. Pregnant women attending 1 of 9 prenatal care clinics affiliated with 3 hospitals in the Cincinnati, Ohio, metropolitan area were recruited. Of the 1263 eligible women, 468 (37.0%) agreed to participate and 355 women (75.8%) were randomized in this intention-to-treat analysis. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 interventions designed to reduce residential lead or injury hazards. Follow-up on children took place at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 years of age. Data analysis was performed from September 2, 2017, to May 6, 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Residential dust lead loadings were measured at baseline and when children were 1 and 2 years of age. At 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 years of age, the children's blood lead concentrations as well as behavior, cognition, and executive functions were assessed. Results: Of the 355 women randomized, 174 (49.0%) were assigned to the intervention group (mean [SD] age at delivery, 30.1 (5.5) years; 119 [68.3%] self-identified as non-Hispanic white) and 181 (50.9%) to the control group (mean [SD] age at delivery, 29.2 [5.7] years; 123 [67.9%] self-identified as non-Hispanic white). The intervention reduced the dust lead loadings for the floor (24%; 95% CI, -43% to 1%), windowsill (40%; 95% CI, -60% to -11%), and window trough (47%; 95% CI, -68% to -10%) surfaces. The intervention did not statistically significantly reduce childhood blood lead concentrations (-6%; 95% CI, -17% to 6%; P = .29). Neurobehavioral test scores were not statistically different between children in the intervention group than those in the control group except for a reduction in anxiety scores in the intervention group (β = -1.6; 95% CI, -3.2 to -0.1; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: Residential lead exposures, as well as blood lead concentrations in non-Hispanic black children, were reduced through a comprehensive lead-hazard intervention without elevating the lead body burden. However, this decrease did not result in substantive neurobehavioral improvements in children. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00129324.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations60
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMA PediatricsSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207