ArticleAmyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration2025
Occupational lead exposure and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis survival in the Danish National Patient Registry.
Article in Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis & frontotemporal degeneration, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWe investigated the relationship between occupational lead exposure and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) survival in Denmark.
methodsWe identified 2,161 ALS cases diagnosed from 1982 to 2013 with at least 5 years of employment history before ALS diagnosis, via the Danish National Patient Registry. Cases were followed until March 2017. We defined lead exposure as never employed in a lead job, ever employed in a lead job, and ever employed in a lead job by exposure probability (<50% vs. ≥50%), excluding jobs held in the 5 years before diagnosis in main analyses. Survival was evaluated using Cox proportional hazards models and stratified by sex and age of diagnosis.
resultsMedian age of diagnosis was 63.5 years, and individuals in lead-exposed jobs were diagnosed at a younger age. Adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) were slightly decreased for men ever lead-exposed (aHR:0.92, 95%CI: 0.80, 1.05) and more so among those diagnosed at age 60-69 (lead ≥ 50% aHR: 0.66, 95%CI: 0.45, 0.98), but reversed for men diagnosed at age 70 and later (aHR: 2.03, 95%CI: 1.13, 3.64). No apparent pattern was observed among women.
conclusionsOccupational lead exposure contributed to shorter survival among men diagnosed at older ages. The inverse associations observed for men diagnosed earlier could relate to possible healthy worker hire effect or health advantages of working in lead-exposed jobs. Our results are consistent with an adverse impact of lead exposure on ALS survival at older ages, with the age at which lead's effects on survival worsen later on among those in lead-exposed jobs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.