Outdoor Fine Particles and Nonfatal Strokes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Epidemiologic studies find that long- and short-term exposure to fine particles (PM2.5) is associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including ischemic and hemorrhagic strokes. However, few systematic reviews or meta-analyses have synthesized these results. METHODS: We reviewed epidemiologic studies that estimated the risks of nonfatal strokes attributable to ambient PM2.5. To pool risks among studies we used a random-effects model and 2 Bayesian approaches. The first Bayesian approach assumes a normal prior that allows risks to be zero, positive or negative. The second assumes a gamma prior, where risks can only be positive. This second approach is proposed when the number of studies pooled is small, and there is toxicological or clinical literature to support a causal relation. RESULTS: We identified 20 studies suitable for quantitative meta-analysis. Evidence for publication bias is limited. The frequentist meta-analysis produced pooled risk ratios of 1.06 (95% confidence interval = 1.00-1.13) and 1.007 (1.003-1.010) for long- and short-term effects, respectively. The Bayesian meta-analysis found a posterior mean risk ratio of 1.08 (95% posterior interval = 0.96-1.26) and 1.008 (1.003-1.013) from a normal prior, and of 1.05 (1.02-1.10) and 1.008 (1.004-1.013) from a gamma prior, for long- and short-term effects, respectively, per 10 μg/m PM2.5. CONCLUSIONS: Sufficient evidence exists to develop a concentration-response relation for short- and long-term exposures to PM2.5 and stroke incidence. Long-term exposures to PM2.5 result in a higher risk ratio than short-term exposures, regardless of the pooling method. The evidence for short-term PM2.5-related ischemic stroke is especially strong.
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 | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".