Estimation of the pooled mean blood lead levels of Indian children: Evidence from systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent systematic review reported very high pooled estimates of blood lead levels (BLLs) for Indian children. Current study aimed at systematically pooling the BLLs of Indian children (aged ≤ 14 years). Further, explore the time trend of BLLs with respect to implementing the ban on the use of Pb-petrol (i.e.2000) and a decade later (2010). Observational studies documenting the BLL in Indian children (aged ≤ 14 years) from PubMed-Medline, Scopus, and Embase digital databases from inception to August 2024 were systematically reviewed. Detailed protocol is available at PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022382835). Pooled mean BLL was estimated using the random-effects model and conventional- I 2 statistics to assess the heterogeneity, while the Newcastle Ottawa Scale for bias assessment. Sub-group, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses were performed where data permitted. Observations from 65 reports (51 original studies) revealed pooled BLL of 10.4 (95 % CI: 9.55–11.2) µg/dL with a trend of gradual reduction during the last 3 decades. Subgroup analysis revealed the high risk (with known Pb exposure) children had BLL of 14.3 (12.3–16.2) µg/dL, while that of the low risk (no known Pb exposure) is 8.71 (7.71–9.71) µg/dL. Only the low risk group exhibited a time trend of a gradual reduction in BLL. Notably, the review observed high heterogeneity. A progressive decline in Pb burden with respect to the national ban on leaded petrol was observed. However, present observations emphasize remedial actions toward non-occupational Pb exposure particularly among high risk Pb group, such as periodic BLL surveys. • Pooled data indicates Indian children's mean BLL is above the reference level. • BLLs have gradually declined following the ban on leaded petrol in India. • Higher BLLs observed in children with known/high Pb exposure risk versus low risk. • Currently available evidences are predominantly low quality and carried high heterogeneity. • National programs are effective and required on long run to reduce Pb pollution
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 | 0.029 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.029 | 0.052 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".