A preliminary study on assessment of lead exposure in competitive biathletes: and its effects on respiratory health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: In this preliminary study, we aimed to assess the blood lead level (BLL) in biathletes compared to cross-country skiers, and to look at the effects on airway function, responsiveness, allergic sensitization and the report of training-induced respiratory symptoms. Methods: Eleven biathletes (19 ± 2 years old, sex: 6M:4F) and 12 cross-country skiers (18 ± 3 years old, sex: 4M:8F) had a blood sample, spirometry, bronchial provocation test to Methacholine, skin prick tests, and induced sputum. Biathletes performed the tests within 3 h after a 90 to 120 min shooting session (150 ± 45 bullets fired). Results: Lung function, airway responsiveness, sensitization to common airborne allergens, and the report of training-induced respiratory symptoms were not different between both groups of winter sport athlete. BLL was significantly higher in biathletes vs. cross-country skiers (geometric mean [95%CI]: 2.15 [1.37–2.94] μg/dL vs. 0.85 [0.81–0.89] μg/dL, respectively, p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.25). One biathlete had a BLL greater than the recommended threshold (> 5 μg/dL). Significant correlations were observed in biathletes only between BLL and FEV 1 and FVC in absolute value (r = 0.69, p = 0.02 and r = 0.69, p = 0.02, respectively). Conclusion: Despite higher BLL in biathletes, no difference in atopy, respiratory function or symptoms was observed with cross-country skiers in our experimental conditions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".