MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1958424163 · doi:10.2478/v10001-008-0002-3

Ambient Air Pollution and Daily Emergency Department Visits for Asthma in Edmonton, Canada

2008· article· en· W1958424163 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mieczysław Szyszkowicz

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsAsthmaEmergency departmentMedicineAir pollutionAir pollutantsEffect modificationNitrogen dioxideEnvironmental healthDemographyPediatricsInternal medicineMeteorologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: As demonstrated by many studies, emergency department (ED) visits for asthma can be associated with air pollution exposures. The aim of this study was to examine and assess the potential relations between ED visits for asthma and the concentrations of ambient air pollutants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Generalized linear mixed model was applied to study 62,563 ED visits for asthma (ICD-9: 493) in Edmonton, Canada. Two age groups, with 10 years of age as a separator, were considered by gender and season of the year: all (I-XII), warm (IV-IX) and cold (X-III). RESULTS: The percentage increase in daily ED visits for asthma was 17.8% (95% CI: 7.1-29.5) and 13.8% (95% CI: 3.3-25.3) for females below 10 years of age, in the period of IV-IX, for current day and 1-day lagged exposure to ozone (O(3)), respectively. The percentage increase was 19.2% (95% CI: 11.4-27.6) for males below 10 years of age, in the period of IV-IX, for 2-day lagged exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO(2)). CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide support for the hypothesis that ED visits for asthma are associated with exposure to O(3). This study underlines the significant role of air pollutants as triggering asthma attacks.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental HealthSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207