Spatial Analysis of the Air Pollution--Mortality Relationship in the Context of Ecologic Confounders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lack of control for confounding by ecological covariates that may relate to sulfate air pollution and mortality was a key criticism of the two studies that were the focus of the Particle Reanalysis Project. To assess the validity of this criticism, we address the question: "Does sulfate air pollution exert health effects when the impact of other individual and ecologic variables thought to influence health is taken into account?" A related question arises from the possibility of autocorrelation in the mortality risks and ecologic covariates. Failure to control for autocorrelation can lead to false positive significance tests and may indicate bias resulting from a missing variable or group of variables. We control for more than 25 individual risk factors and for 20 ecologic variables representing environmental, socioeconomic, demographic, health- care, and lifestyle determinants of health in a two-stage multilevel analysis. Four modeling strategies are used to control for spatial autocorrelation. Of the 20 ecologic variables tested, only sulfate and sulfur dioxide are significant in models that incorporate spatial autocorrelation. Accounting for autocorrelation also reduces the size and certainty of the sulfate effect on mortality when compared to results generated from Cox models where independent observations are assumed. Confidence limits for the sulfate relative risk include unity in models that simultaneously control for sulfur dioxide and autocorrelation.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".