MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040321755 · doi:10.1080/09603120701844290

Assessing the health impacts of air pollution: a re-analysis of the Hamilton children's cohort data using a spatial analytic approach

2008· article· en· W2040321755 on OpenAlexaff
Theodora Pouliou, Pavlos Kanaroglou, Susan J. Elliott, L. D. Pengelly

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Environmental Health Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir pollutionEnvironmental healthLogistic regressionRegression analysisPollutionCohortKrigingCovariateMedicineCohort studyEnvironmental scienceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper was to reassess children's exposure to air pollution as well as investigate the importance of other covariates of respiratory health. We re-examined the Hamilton Children's Cohort (HCC) dataset with enhanced spatial analysis methods, refined in the approximately two decades since the original study was undertaken. Children's exposure to air pollution was first re-estimated using kriging and land-use regression. The land-use regression model performed better, compared to kriging, in capturing local variation of air pollution. Multivariate linear and logistic regression analysis was then applied for the study of potential risk factors for respiratory health. Findings agree with the HCC study-results, confirming that children's respiratory health was associated with maternal smoking, hospitalization in infancy and air pollution. However, results from this study reveal a stronger association between children's respiratory health and air pollution. Additionally, this study demonstrated associations with low-income, household crowding and chest illness in siblings.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations25
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Environmental Health ResearchSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207