MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058411139 · doi:10.1289/ehp.02110s4527

Assessing exposure to air toxics relative to asthma.

2002· review· en· W2058411139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Clifford P. Weisel

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesHealth Effects Institute
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceIndoor air qualityParticulatesEnvironmental healthAir quality indexPollutantAir pollutionAir pollutantsAsthmaHazardous wasteAir purifierEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental protectionWaste managementMeteorologyMedicineGeographyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Asthma is a respiratory disease whose prevalence has been increasing since the mid 1970s and that affects more than 14.6 million residents of the United States. Environmental triggers of asthma include air pollutants that are respiratory irritants. Air toxics emitted into the ambient air are listed in the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) if they can adversely affect human health, including the respiratory tract. HAPs include particulate and gaseous-phase pollutants, individual organic compounds and metals, and mixtures. Associations between asthma exacerbation and both particles and indoor volatile organic compounds (VOCs), often referred to as indoor air quality, have been reported. Studies conducted in the United States, Canada, and Europe over the past two decades have shown that most people living in the developed countries spend the majority of their time indoors and that the air concentrations of many air toxics or HAPs are higher indoors than in the ambient air in urban, suburban, and rural settings. Elevated indoor air concentrations result from emissions of air toxics from consumer products, household furnishings, and personal activities. The Relationship of Indoor, Outdoor and Personal Air (RIOPA) study was designed to oversample homes in close proximity to ambient sources, excluding residences where smokers lived, to determine the contribution of ambient emissions to air toxics exposure. The ratios of indoor to outdoor air concentrations of some VOCs in homes measured during RIOPA were much greater than one, and for most other VOCs that had indoor-to-outdoor ratios close to unity in the majority of homes, elevated ratios were found in the paired samples with the highest concentration. Thus, although ambient emissions contribute to exposure of some air toxics indoors as well as outdoors, this was not true for all of the air toxics and especially for the higher end of exposures to most volatile organic air toxics examined. It is therefore critical, when evaluating potential effects of air toxics on asthma or other adverse health end points, to determine where the exposure occurs and the source contributions for each air toxic and target population separately and not to rely solely on ambient air concentration measurements.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.013

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.312 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations112
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207