ReviewCardiovascular toxicology2026
Interpretable Machine Learning in Heavy Metal-Associated Cardiovascular and Metabolic Disease: A Review of Current Methodologies, Toxicological Insights, and Clinical Implications.
Review in Cardiovascular toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Heavy metals, including lead (Pb), cadmium (Cd), arsenic (As), and mercury (Hg), are pervasive environmental toxicants increasingly recognized as nontraditional contributors to cardiovascular and cardiometabolic disease. Large-scale epidemiology and mechanistic studies link chronic low-to-moderate exposure to hypertension, atherosclerosis, coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, heart failure (HF), and premature cardiovascular mortality. Concurrently, exposure science has shifted from single-pollutant models to high-dimensional "exposome" frameworks that must address correlated mixtures, non-linear dose-response, and subgroup heterogeneity. Machine learning (ML) methods can; learn these complex patterns, but clinical and policy translation requires interpretability: understanding which metals drive risk, how risk changes across exposure ranges, and where interactions amplify harm. This narrative review synthesizes contemporary interpretable ML approaches as SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP), partial dependence tools, Bayesian kernel machine regression (BKMR), and mixture-caausal methods, with toxicological mechanisms and clinically relevant outcomes. We integrate evidence from recent NHANES analyses, electronic medical record (EMR) mining, and the All of Us Research Program, highlighting a consistent ML-derived hierarchy wherein cadmium and lead frequently reported as dominant risk drivers for cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes and mortality prediction improvements when metal biomarkers augment standard risk models. We discuss current limitations, cross-sectional designs, residual confounding, measurement error, and variability in model development, and propose a future research agenda highlighting longitudinal cohorts, standardized reporting, causal validation, and integration of omics and real-time exposure monitoring to enable personalized environmental prevention.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42289619What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.