Spatial analysis of air pollution and childhood asthma in Hamilton, Canada: comparing exposure methods in sensitive subgroups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Variations in air pollution exposure within a community may be associated with asthma prevalence. However, studies conducted to date have produced inconsistent results, possibly due to errors in measurement of the exposures. METHODS: A standardized asthma survey was administered to children in grades one and eight in Hamilton, Canada, in 1994-95 (N approximately 1467). Exposure to air pollution was estimated in four ways: (1) distance from roadways; (2) interpolated surfaces for ozone, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter and nitrous oxides from seven to nine governmental monitoring stations; (3) a kriged nitrogen dioxide (NO2) surface based on a network of 100 passive NO2 monitors; and (4) a land use regression (LUR) model derived from the same monitoring network. Logistic regressions were used to test associations between asthma and air pollution, controlling for variables including neighbourhood income, dwelling value, state of housing, a deprivation index and smoking. RESULTS: There were no significant associations between any of the exposure estimates and asthma in the whole population, but large effects were detected the subgroup of children without hayfever (predominately in girls). The most robust effects were observed for the association of asthma without hayfever and NO2LUR OR = 1.86 (95%CI, 1.59-2.16) in all girls and OR = 2.98 (95%CI, 0.98-9.06) for older girls, over an interquartile range increase and controlling for confounders. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that traffic-related pollutants, such as NO2, are associated with asthma without overt evidence of other atopic disorders among female children living in a medium-sized Canadian city. The effects were sensitive to the method of exposure estimation. More refined exposure models produced the most robust associations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".