Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,144

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lead Poisoning

Needleman, Herbert·2004·Annual Review of Medicine

Abstract

Understanding of lead toxicity has advanced substantially over the past three decades, and focus has shifted from high-dose effects in clinically symptomatic individuals to the consequences of exposure at lower doses that cause no symptoms, particularly in children and fetuses. The availability of more sensitive analytic methods has made it possible to measure lead at much lower concentrations. This advance, along with more refined epidemiological techniques and better outcome measures, has lowered the least observable effect level until it approaches zero. As a consequence, the segment of the population who are diagnosed with exposure to toxic levels has expanded. At the same time, environmental efforts, most importantly the removal of lead from gasoline, have dramatically reduced the amount of lead in the biosphere. The remaining major source of lead is older housing stock. Although the cost of lead paint abatement is measured in billions of dollars, the monetized benefits of such a Herculean task have been shown to far outweigh the costs.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.med.55.091902.103653

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Needleman, H.
Venue
Annual Review of Medicine
Published
2004-02-01
Volume
55
Issue
1
Pages
209-222
ISSN
  • 0066-4219 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-326X
OpenAlex
W4242222465
Cited by
1,144
References
1
FWCI
2.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.