MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060020545 · doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2015.04.010

Synoptic weather types and aeroallergens modify the effect of air pollution on hospitalisations for asthma hospitalisations in Canadian cities

2015· article· en· W2060020545 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chris Hebbern, Sabit Cakmak

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Pollution · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersClean Air Regulatory AgendaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsAsthmaEnvironmental scienceAir pollutionPollutantMeteorologyAir pollutantsWeather patternsAtmospheric sciencesEnvironmental healthClimatologyMedicineGeographyClimate changeImmunologyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pollution levels and the effect of air pollution on human health can be modified by synoptic weather type and aeroallergens. We investigated the effect modification of aeroallergens on the association between CO, O3, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5 and asthma hospitalisation rates in seven synoptic weather types. We developed single air pollutant models, adjusted for the effect of aeroallergens and stratified by synoptic weather type, and pooled relative risk estimates for asthma hospitalisation in ten Canadian cities. Aeroallergens significantly modified the relative risk in 19 pollutant-weather type combinations, reducing the size and variance for each single pollutant model. However, aeroallergens did not significantly modify relative risk for any pollutant in the DT or MT weather types, or for PM10 in any weather type. Thus, there is a modifying effect of aeroallergens on the association between CO, O3, NO2, SO2, PM2.5 and asthma hospitalisations that differs under specific synoptic weather types.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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