MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2910616011 · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(18)30284-5

Air quality alerts benefit asthmatics – Authors' reply

2019· letter· en· W2910616011 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Hong Chen, Jay S. Kaufman, Tarik Benmarhnia

Notice bibliographique

RevueThe Lancet Planetary Health · 2019
Typeletter
Langueen
DomaineEnvironmental Science
ThématiqueAir Quality and Health Impacts
Établissements canadiensMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentreInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésScopusAsthmaAir quality indexEmergency departmentMedicineNational Health and Nutrition Examination SurveyQuality (philosophy)Family medicineEnvironmental healthMEDLINENursingGeographyPolitical sciencePopulation

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

We appreciate the comments by Kaylee Ho and colleagues1Ho K Paez J Liu B Air quality alerts benefit asthmatics.Lancet Planet Health. 2018; 2: 518Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar on our study,2Chen H Li Q Kaufman JS et al.Effect of air quality alerts on human health: a regression discontinuity analysis in Toronto, Canada.Lancet Planet Health. 2018; 2: e19-e26Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (48) Google Scholar in which we evaluated the influence of an air quality alert programme on a wide array of health outcomes in Toronto, Canada. The Correspondence by Ho and colleagues presented an analysis using the 2007–10 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in the USA, showing that individuals who had asthma were more likely to change their behaviours in response to deterioration in air quality than those without asthma.3Zipf G Chiappa M Porter KS Ostchega Y Lewis BG Dostal J National health and nutrition examination survey: plan and operations, 1999–2010.Vital Health Stat 1. 2013; 56: 1-37Google Scholar Their finding adds to the ongoing scientific discussion as to whether an air quality alert programme might encourage avoidance behaviours (eg, reducing outdoor travelling and physical activities) on days with high levels of pollution. Although we applaud the efforts made by Ho and colleagues to provide an explanation to one of our findings that air quality alerts were related to some reduction in asthma-related emergency department visits, their method is somewhat unclear. Without presenting the number of non-asthmatics, there is some ambiguity as to whether the four strata (lifetime asthma, current asthma, asthma attack in the past year, and asthma emergency department visit in the past year) were indeed mutually exclusive. In addition, it is uncertain whether the question about behavioural changes was responded to by both asthmatics and non-asthmatics, or only by individuals with asthma. Furthermore, Ho and colleagues compared the proportion of individuals who changed activity because of poor air quality between asthmatics and non-asthmatics within each of the four strata. This appears to imply that individuals who do not have asthma were also included in the four strata. Despite our observation that air quality alerts were related to some decreases in asthma emergency department visits, we did not detect a reduction in any of the other health outcomes examined. One important implication of these findings is that measures focusing only on days with the highest levels of pollution are unlikely to help to address the most harmful effects of air pollution, given the role of long-term air pollution exposure as a risk factor for major chronic diseases such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and respiratory diseases. Although there is an increasing interest in developing innovative programmes, such as personalised systems to protect high-risk subgroups from air pollution, converging scientific evidence over the past decades suggests that air pollution problems are best addressed through collective and enforceable actions. Such actions could be improvement in fuel standards and emission control, especially targeting specific sources such as power generation and industries that contribute substantially to air pollution, and improvement in urban and transportation planning, rather than advising individuals and leaving to them to protect themselves from the harmful effects of air pollution. We declare no competing interests. Air quality alerts benefit asthmaticsWe have read with interest the Article by Hong Chen and colleagues,1 particularly the evidence of reductions in asthma-related emergency-department visits associated with air quality alert programmes in Toronto (ON, Canada). We have compared changes in activity between people with asthma and people who do not have asthma using representative data from the 2007–10 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey in the USA.2 Full-Text PDF Open Access

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Intégrité de la recherche, Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: Sans objet
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,066
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,004
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,006

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,093
Tête enseignante GPT0,339
Écart entre enseignants0,246 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.

Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2019
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueThe Lancet Planetary HealthMême sujetAir Quality and Health ImpactsTravaux en français237 207