Assessing the impact of arsenic, lead, mercury, and cadmium exposure on glycemic and lipid profile markers: A systematic review and meta-analysis protocol
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The toxicity of metals presents a significant threat to human health due to the metabolic changes they induce. Thus, it is crucial to understand the impact of exposure to toxic elements on glycemic and lipid profiles. To this end, we developed a systematic review protocol registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023393681), following PRISMA-P guidelines. This review aims to assess environmental exposure to arsenic, cadmium, mercury, and lead in individuals aged over ten years and elucidate their association with glycemic markers such as fasting plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin, as well as lipid parameters including total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Articles published in the MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS, and Google Scholar databases until March 2024 will be included without language restrictions. The modified Newcastle-Ottawa scale will be employed to assess the quality of the included studies, and the results will be presented through narrative synthesis. If adequate data are available, a meta-analysis will be conducted. This review can help understand the metabolic responses to exposure to toxic elements and the associated health risks.
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it