ArticleFrontiers in toxicology2026
Development and internal evaluation of a clinical prediction model for blood lead re-elevation in lead poisoning patients: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in toxicology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Blood lead can rise again after chelation therapy for lead poisoning, but few tools identify which patients are at highest risk. We developed and internally evaluated a model to predict this re-elevation from routinely collected clinical data. Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 163 patients hospitalized for lead poisoning at Chongqing Poison Control Center from 2014 to 2022. Blood lead re-elevation was ascertained from re-admission for lead poisoning after an initial response to chelation therapy. Logistic regression, random forest, and support vector machine models were evaluated. The dataset was randomly divided into training (70%, n = 114) and testing (30%, n = 49) sets. Model performance was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, precision, recall, calibration, and decision curve analysis. Results: Among 163 patients, 59 (36.2%) experienced blood lead re-elevation. The cohort comprised 44 children (27.0%) and 119 adults (73.0%), and 111 patients (68.1%) were male. Pediatric patients had a higher re-elevation rate than adults (52.3% vs. 30.3%, p = 0.016). The random forest model showed the best internal test-set performance, with an AUC of 0.849, accuracy of 83.7%, precision of 77.8%, and recall of 77.8%. Important predictors included blood lead-to-season ratio, baseline-to-follow-up blood lead ratio, serum calcium-to-blood lead ratio, blood lead-to-hemoglobin ratio, and hemoglobin-to-AST ratio. Conclusion: An internally evaluated model can identify patients at higher risk of blood lead re-elevation after chelation therapy and could guide risk-based follow-up. External validation is needed before clinical use.
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.