Short-Term Exposure to Wildfire Smoke and PM2.5 and Cognitive Performance in a Brain-Training Game: A Longitudinal Study of U.S. Adults
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: There is increasing evidence that long-term exposure to fine particulate matter [PM ≤2.5μm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5)] may adversely impact cognitive performance. Wildfire smoke is one of the biggest sources of PM2.5 and concentrations are likely to increase under climate change. However, little is known about how short-term exposure impacts cognitive function. Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the associations between daily and subdaily (hourly) PM2.5 and wildfire smoke exposure and cognitive performance in adults. Methods: Scores from 20 plays of an attention-oriented brain-training game were obtained for 10,228 adults in the United States (U.S.). We estimated daily and hourly PM2.5 exposure through a data fusion of observations from multiple monitoring networks. Daily smoke exposure in the western U.S. was obtained from satellite-derived estimates of smoke plume density. We used a longitudinal repeated measures design with linear mixed effects models to test for associations between short-term exposure and attention score. Results were also stratified by age, gender, user behavior, and region. Results: Daily and subdaily PM2.5 were negatively associated with attention score. A 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 in the 3 h prior to gameplay was associated with a 21.0 [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.3, 38.7]-point decrease in score. PM2.5 exposure over 20 plays accounted for an estimated average 3.7% (95% CI: 0.7%, 6.7%) reduction in final score. Associations were more pronounced in the wildfire-impacted western U.S. Medium and heavy smoke density were also negatively associated with score. Heavy smoke density the day prior to gameplay was associated with a 117.0 (95% CI: 1.7, 232.3)-point decrease in score relative to no smoke. Although differences between subgroups were not statistically significant, associations were most pronounced for younger (18–29 y), older (≥70y), habitual, and male users. Discussion: Our results indicate that PM2.5 and wildfire smoke were associated with reduced attention in adults within hours and days of exposure, but further research is needed to elucidate these relationships. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP10498
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 enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».