Health Effects of Residential Exposure to Aluminum Plant Air Pollution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the authors evaluated the relative risk of residential exposure to air pollution from an aluminum plant. The authors used government-compiled data to compare hospital admissions in 1997 for selected respiratory diseases for 2 communities in Brazil. One community, Ouro Preto, was located near an aluminum plant, and the other, Diamantina, was located far from any source of industrial air pollution. The relative risk of hospital admissions for selected respiratory diseases was 4.11 (95% confidence interval = 2.96, 5.70). The risk was highest among individuals between 30 and 39 yr of age (relative risk = 11.70; 95% confidence interval = 1.52, 89.96). Admissions per thousand residents were highest for individuals under 10 yr of age and for individuals older than 70 yr of age. The authors assessed exposure with environmental measurements. Dust deposition was collected in the residences of participants (n = 36 in each location), and the dust was analyzed for aluminum, manganese, magnesium, and calcium content. There were significantly different (p < .05) levels of aluminum in the 2 communities; the highest quantities were found near the aluminum plant. Measurements from independent studies indicated that both 24-hr maximum values and annual mean concentrations of suspended particulate matter exceeded the average of international standards in Ouro Preto (i.e., aluminum plant area). These results suggested that exposure to greater air pollution in the aluminum plant area (i.e., Ouro Preto, Brazil) versus the control area resulted in statistically significant health effects in those individuals who resided in Ouro Preto.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".