MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1798518742 · doi:10.1002/env.2148

Statistical methods for estimating the environmental burden of disease in Canada, with applications to mortality from fine particulate matter

2012· article· en· W1798518742 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ahmed Almaskut, Paul J. Farrell, Daniel Krewski

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmetrics · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityInstitute of Population and Public HealthUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAttributable riskDiseasePopulationFraction (chemistry)EstimatorParticulatesYears of potential life lostStatisticsEconometricsEnvironmental healthMedicineDemographyMathematicsLife expectancyInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we describe statistical approaches for estimating the burden of disease. Specifically, we present life‐table methods that can be used to determine years of life lost (YLL) due to the disease of interest. In addition, we propose a new variance estimator for the life table based estimator of YLL and demonstrate its accuracy through computer simulation. We also indicate how the population attributable fraction (PAF) of the disease can be calculated in relation to a known risk factor for the disease. The PAF effectively represents the fraction of the disease burden that would be eliminated in the absence of the risk factor of interest. Finally, we illustrate the use of these methods in assessing the PAF for all cause, lung cancer and cardiopulmonary mortality associated with ambient concentrations of fine particulate matter present in ambient air in Canada. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.554
Threshold uncertainty score0.886

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmetricsSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207