MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003208450 · doi:10.6000/1927-5129.2013.09.34

Health Impacts of PM10 Using AirQ2.2.3 Model in Makkah

2013· article· en· W2003208450 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Turki M. Habeebullah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Basic & Applied Sciences · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerodynamic diameterEnvironmental scienceParticulatesMeteorologyGeographyAerosolChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The core aim of this paper is to investigate the health impacts of atmospheric particles with aerodynamic diameter of 10 micron or less (PM10) in Makkah. PM10 data were collected by automatic continuous monitoring station in Misfalah, Makkah City. The annual average PM10 concentration during the study period was 195 µg/m3, which is greater than twice the PME standards and 4 times the EC standard. Daily average concentrations also exceeded PME and EC standards. Minimum 24 hour average concentration was 66 µg/m3, which is significantly greater than the EC daily average limit (50 µg/m3). This suggests potential negative impact on human health, especially for more vulnerable groups of population, such as old age, children and people with other health problems (e.g., asthma and other respiratory diseases). Furthermore, health assessment is carried out using AirQ2.2.3 model to estimate the number of hospital admissions due to respiratory diseases. The model is based on a risk assessment approach that combines data on concentration-response functions with data on population exposure to calculate the extent of health effects expected to result from exposure to PM10. The cumulative number of estimated average hospital admission due to respiratory illnesses during the study period was 112665, cumulative number of cases per 100,000 was 2504, and the concentration-response coefficient was 2.342 (95% CI 1.899 – 2.785) per 10 ?g/m3 increase of PM10 concentration. The results are discussed in the light of investigations made in several other countries around the world.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations30
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Basic & Applied SciencesSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207