MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965632619 · doi:10.1093/aje/153.5.444

Association between Ozone and Hospitalization for Acute Respiratory Diseases in Children Less than 2 Years of Age

2001· article· en· W1965632619 on OpenAlexaffabout
Richard T. Burnett, Marc Smith-Doiron, Dave Stieb, Mark Raizenne, Jeffrey R. Brook, Robert Dales, Sabit Cakmak, Daniel Krewski

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Epidemiology · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOzoneMedicineConfidence intervalAir pollutionAir pollutantsRespiratory systemPediatricsDemographyEnvironmental healthMeteorologyInternal medicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To clarify the health effects of ozone exposure in young children, the authors studied the association between air pollution and hospital admissions for acute respiratory problems in children less than 2 years of age during the 15-year period from 1980 to 1994 in Toronto, Canada. The daily time series of admissions was adjusted for the influences of day of the week, season, and weather. A 35% (95% confidence interval: 19%, 52%) increase in the daily hospitalization rate for respiratory problems was associated with a 5-day moving average of the daily 1-hour maximum ozone concentration of 45 parts per billion, the May-August average value. The ozone effect persisted after adjustment for other ambient air pollutants or weather variables. Ozone was not associated with hospital admissions during the September-April period. Ambient ozone levels in the summertime should be considered a risk factor for respiratory problems in children less than 2 years of age.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.130
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 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

Citations177
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of EpidemiologySame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207