MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2934959835 · doi:10.1097/ta.0000000000002287

Lead toxicity from retained bullet fragments: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W2934959835 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Trauma: Injury, Infection, and Critical Care · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGun Ownership and Violence Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCochrane LibraryMeta-analysisCohort studyLead poisoningInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Firearm injury remains a public health epidemic in the United States. A large proportion of individuals with gunshot wounds subsequently have retained bullet fragments (RBF). There are no standard medical guidelines regarding bullet removal and the full extent of the consequences of RBF remains unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether there is an association among RBF, elevated blood lead levels (BLL) and lead toxicity in survivors of firearm injury 16 years and older. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Sociological Abstracts electronic databases were searched for all randomized controlled trials, prospective and retrospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies published in the English language between 1988 and 2018. Quality assessment and risk of bias was evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. A meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS: The search yielded 2,012 articles after removal of duplicates. Twelve were included after full article review. Eleven studies supported an association between elevated BLL and RBF. Bony fractures were associated with increased risk of elevated BLL in three studies. A positive relationship between BLL and the number of RBF was also shown in three studies, with one study demonstrating 25.6% increase in BLL for every natural-log increase in RBF (1-228, p < 0.01). Meta-analysis demonstrated BLL significantly higher in individuals with RBF as compared to controls (5.47 μg/dL, p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Patients with bony fractures or multiple RBF, who are at higher risk of elevated BLL, should be monitored for BLL in intervals of 3 months within the first year of injury. For patients who return with BLL above 5 μg/dL, all efforts must be undertaken to remove fragments if there is no potential to worsen the injury. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Systematic review, Meta-analysis, level III.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.902
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.292 · 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