MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969087650 · doi:10.1177/1420326x07082730

Review: Indoor Nitrogen Dioxide and VOC Exposures: Summary of Evidence for an Association with Childhood Asthma and a Case for the Inclusion of Indoor Ultrafine Particle Measures in Future Studies

2007· article· en· W1969087650 on OpenAlexaff
Scott Weichenthal, André Dufresne, Claire Infante‐Rivard

Bibliographic record

VenueIndoor and Built Environment · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaEnvironmental healthNitrogen dioxideIndoor air qualityMedicineExacerbationEnvironmental epidemiologyIndoor airEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringImmunologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childhood asthma is a complex disease having both genetic and environmental risk factors. As such, it is important to identify indoor exposures that may contribute to asthma symptoms in order to minimise the likelihood of disease onset or exacerbation. Here we summarise epidemiological evidence regarding the potential relationship between indoor nitrogen dioxide, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and childhood asthma. In general, VOC exposure studies have been more consistent in demonstrating a significant relationship with asthma or related symptoms, and studies of indoor nitrogen dioxide exposure are limited in that most do not control for indoor VOC exposures. Therefore, when possible, future studies should include both types of exposure measures as well as those for other potential risk factors such as ultrafine particles that have been shown to contribute to airway inflammation.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndoor and Built EnvironmentSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207