ArticleBiological trace element research2026
Ascorbic Acid as a Dual Therapeutic and Preventive Agent against Lead and Cadmium Toxicity: Evidence from Controlled Quail Experiments.
Article in Biological trace element research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lead (Pb) and cadmium (Cd) are pervasive toxicants that bioaccumulate and cause multisystem injury. Two controlled experiments were conducted in quails, subdivided into co‑exposure (ascorbic acid (AA) given concurrently with Pb or Cd for four weeks) and post‑exposure (AA administered for three weeks after one week of metal exposure). Birds received Pb acetate or Cd chloride (500 ppm) with AA (1000 ppm). In the Pb experiment, co‑exposure with AA significantly reduced tissue burdens compared with Pb alone: liver (16.7 ± 0.8 vs. 29.0 ± 1.3 ppb), thigh (3.2 ± 0.6 vs. 10.6 ± 1.3 ppb), brisket (2.4 ± 0.4 vs. 13.7 ± 0.5 ppb), brain (21.7 ± 3.3 vs. 36.0 ± 3.9 ppb), bone (567.2 ± 81.6 vs. 1411.2 ± 9.8 ppb), and blood (15.1 ± 1.4 vs. 36.9 ± 3.7 ppb; all p < 0.001). Post‑exposure AA also lowered concentrations: liver (3.9 ± 1.4 vs. 12.3 ± 0.3 ppb), thigh (1.9 ± 0.3 vs. 11.3 ± 1.0 ppb), brisket (1.2 ± 0.1 vs. 6.4 ± 0.5 ppb), brain (5.7 ± 0.2 vs. 25.4 ± 1.4 ppb), bone (109.9 ± 23.6 vs. 384.5 ± 35.7 ppb), and blood (9.2 ± 0.9 vs. 19.9 ± 1.7 ppb; all p < 0.001). In the Cd experiment, co‑exposure with AA reduced tissue levels: liver (4381.5 ± 281.2 vs. 9291.1 ± 278.3 ppb), thigh (47.2 ± 1.0 vs. 116.6 ± 1.7 ppb), brisket (50.6 ± 3.6 vs. 82.8 ± 2.3 ppb), brain (31.4 ± 1.1 vs. 66.1 ± 2.7 ppb), bone (416.7 ± 11.0 vs. 562.3 ± 10.9 ppb), and blood (174.1 ± 7.9 vs. 298.5 ± 6.6 ppb; all p < 0.001). Post‑exposure AA likewise lowered burdens: liver (1109.5 ± 156.8 vs. 3200.6 ± 324.4 ppb), thigh (5.3 ± 0.5 vs. 32.6 ± 4.1 ppb), brisket (3.8 ± 0.7 vs. 30.4 ± 2.3 ppb), brain (6.5 ± 0.9 vs. 44.5 ± 5.8 ppb), bone (43.5 ± 3.1 vs. 187.6 ± 14.6 ppb), and blood (63.3 ± 1.1 vs. 143.5 ± 15.4 ppb; all p < 0.001). Across both paradigms, co‑exposure with AA generally produced larger relative reductions in tissue burdens compared with post‑exposure treatment, although both approaches were effective. Given its safety, availability, and low cost, AA may be incorporated into strategies for populations at risk of heavy metal exposure.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42374009What 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.