Effects of Bismuth Exposure on the Human Kidney—A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of bismuth toxicity on the kidney-the main organ responsible for blood filtration-were systematically reviewed. This review was motivated by availability of several sources of bismuth in contact with humans including environmental, medications, dental materials, and cosmetics, potentially leading to kidney filtration of this chemical. No previous studies have systematically reviewed the literature considering this association. A total of 22 studies with a total of 46 individuals met the inclusion criteria, 19 being case reports with only one patient enrolled. The included studies publication dates ranged from 1961 to 2021 and the countries of publication were the United States of America, United Kingdom, Germany, Turkey, Switzerland, and Canada. Bismuth sources affecting the kidneys were uniquely reported as from medical purposes and mostly associated to overdoses with several symptoms, apparently with dose-dependent consequences. Patient history of renal impairment seemed to affect the outcome of the case. Several therapies were conducted following bismuth intoxication, and few studies performed renal biopsies describing its histological findings. It is crucial to reconsider the nephrotoxicity of bismuth compounds, mainly in patients with previous history of renal impairment.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".