Modeling the Residential Infiltration of Outdoor PM <sub>2.5</sub> in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution (MESA Air)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies of fine particulate matter [aerodynamic diameter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM(2.5))] typically use outdoor concentrations as exposure surrogates. Failure to account for variation in residential infiltration efficiencies (F(inf)) will affect epidemiologic study results. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop models to predict F(inf) for > 6,000 homes in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis and Air Pollution (MESA Air), a prospective cohort study of PM(2.5) exposure, subclinical cardiovascular disease, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: We collected 526 two-week, paired indoor-outdoor PM(2.5) filter samples from a subset of study homes. PM(2.5) elemental composition was measured by X-ray fluorescence, and F(inf) was estimated as the indoor/outdoor sulfur ratio. We regressed F(inf) on meteorologic variables and questionnaire-based predictors in season-specific models. Models were evaluated using the R² and root mean square error (RMSE) from a 10-fold cross-validation. RESULTS: The mean ± SD F(inf) across all communities and seasons was 0.62 ± 0.21, and community-specific means ranged from 0.47 ± 0.15 in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, to 0.82 ± 0.14 in New York, New York. F(inf) was generally greater during the warm (> 18°C) season. Central air conditioning (AC) use, frequency of AC use, and window opening frequency were the most important predictors during the warm season; outdoor temperature and forced-air heat were the best cold-season predictors. The models predicted 60% of the variance in 2-week F(inf), with an RMSE of 0.13. CONCLUSIONS: We developed intuitive models that can predict F(inf) using easily obtained variables. Using these models, MESA Air will be the first large epidemiologic study to incorporate variation in residential F(inf) into an exposure assessment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".