MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117024138 · doi:10.1002/alz70860_101687

Historical Atmospheric Lead Concentrations (1960‐1974) and Memory Problems Half a Century Later: Findings from Two Large, Independent Representative Samples

2025· article· en· W7117024138 on OpenAlexaffabout
Eric E. Brown, Melissa A. Lombard, Alisha Yee Chan, Joseph D. Ayotte, Scarlett Rakowska, Esme Fuller‐Thomson

Bibliographic record

VenueAlzheimer s & Dementia · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOddsLead (geology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Air pollutionDementiaAir pollutantsAtmospheric pollutionIncidence (geometry)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Lead exposure has adverse impacts on cognition and dementia risk factors such as hypertension. A major historical source of lead exposure was via atmospheric pollution due to leaded gasoline. Method We mapped historical atmospheric lead levels (HALL) in the contiguous US using measurements obtained by the US EPA from 1960 to 1974, a period of high leaded gasoline combustion. We extrapolated HALL by kriging and calculated mean HALL for each public use microdata area (PUMA). Our analyses include only PUMAs which contained at least one lead measurement in 1960‐74. We obtained individual‐level data of self‐reported memory problems, from the American Community Survey (ACS) in two time periods, 2012‐2017 ( n = 368,208) and 2018‐2021 ( n = 276,476). The samples were restricted to respondents aged 65 and older living in their natal state. We calculated odds ratios using HALL as the exposure variable and self‐reported memory problems as the outcome, controlling for respondents’ age, sex, race/ethnicity, and education. We used individuals in PUMAs with the lowest HALL (< 0.4 µg/m 3 ) as reference in comparison to those in PUMAs with moderate (0.4‐.79 µg/m 3 ), high (0.8‐1.19 µg/m 3 ) and extremely high HALL (>=1.2 µg/m 3 ). Result In the 2012‐2017 ACS, in comparison to older adults living in PUMAs with the lowest HALL, the odds of reported memory impairment were higher in those in PUMAs with moderate (Odds ratio (OR)=1.21; 95% CI=1.17‐1.25), high (OR=1.21; 95% CI=1.17‐1.25) and extremely high HALL levels (OR=1.19; 95% CI=1.13‐1.25). We replicated the study using 2018‐2021 ACS data and found comparable outcomes for older adults living in PUMAs with moderate (OR = 1.17; 95% CI=1.12‐1.21), high (OR=1.20; 95% CI=1.16‐1.25) and very high HALL (OR=1.22; 95% CI=1.15‐1.29). Conclusion We observed in two very large ( n >250,000) independent representative samples that older adults had approximately 20% higher odds of reporting memory problems if they lived in PUMAs that had HALL > 0.4 µg/m 3 compared to <0.4 µg/m 3 . This adds to the evidence implicating lasting health outcomes, including cognition, due to earlier life lead exposure from air pollution. The precipitous decline in atmospheric lead exposure in the last quarter of the 20 th century may help to explain the declining incidence of dementia in the US.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.110

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlzheimer s & DementiaSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207