Evaluation of a spatially resolved forest fire smoke model for population-based epidemiologic exposure assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to forest fire smoke (FFS) is associated with multiple adverse health effects, mostly respiratory. Findings for cardiovascular effects have been inconsistent, possibly related to the limitations of conventional methods to assess FFS exposure. In previous work, we developed an empirical model to estimate smoke-related fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for all populated areas in British Columbia (BC), Canada. Here, we evaluate the utility of our model by comparing epidemiologic associations between modeled and measured PM2.5. For each local health area (LHA), we used Poisson regression to estimate the effects of PM2.5 estimates and measurements on counts of medication dispensations and outpatient physician visits. We then used meta-regression to estimate the overall effects. A 10 μg/m(3) increase in modeled PM2.5 was associated with increased sabutamol dispensations (RR=1.04, 95% CI 1.03-1.06), and physician visits for asthma (1.06, 1.04-1.08), COPD (1.02, 1.00-1.03), lower respiratory infections (1.03, 1.00-1.05), and otitis media (1.05, 1.03-1.07), all comparable to measured PM2.5. Effects on cardiovascular outcomes were only significant using model estimates in all LHAs during extreme fire days. This suggests that the exposure model is a promising tool for increasing the power of epidemiologic studies to detect the health effects of FFS via improved spatial coverage and resolution.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".