Approximations for Estimating Change in Life Expectancy Attributable to Air Pollution in Relation to Multiple Causes of Death Using a Cause Modified Life Table
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is considerable debate as to the most appropriate metric for characterizing the mortality impacts of air pollution. Life expectancy has been advocated as an informative measure. Although the life-table calculus is relatively straightforward, it becomes increasingly cumbersome when repeated over large numbers of geographic areas and for multiple causes of death. Two simplifying assumptions were evaluated: linearity of the relation between excess rate ratio and change in life expectancy, and additivity of cause-specific life-table calculations. We employed excess rate ratios linking PM2.5 and mortality from cerebrovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ischemic heart disease, and lung cancer derived from a meta-analysis of worldwide cohort studies. As a sensitivity analysis, we employed an integrated exposure response function based on the observed risk of PM2.5 over a wide range of concentrations from ambient exposure, indoor exposure, second-hand smoke, and personal smoking. Impacts were estimated in relation to a change in PM2.5 from 19.5 μg/m(3) estimated for Toronto to an estimated natural background concentration of 1.8 μg/m(3) . Estimated changes in life expectancy varied linearly with excess rate ratios, but at higher values the relationship was more accurately represented as a nonlinear function. Changes in life expectancy attributed to specific causes of death were additive with maximum error of 10%. Results were sensitive to assumptions about the air pollution concentration below which effects on mortality were not quantified. We have demonstrated valid approximations comprising expression of change in life expectancy as a function of excess mortality and summation across multiple causes of death.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".