Ambient Ozone Concentrations and the Risk of Perforated and Nonperforated Appendicitis: A Multicity Case-Crossover Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Environmental determinants of appendicitis are poorly understood. Past work suggests that air pollution may increase the risk of appendicitis. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether ambient ground-level ozone (O3) concentrations were associated with appendicitis and whether these associations varied between perforated and nonperforated appendicitis. METHODS: We based this time-stratified case-crossover study on 35,811 patients hospitalized with appendicitis from 2004 to 2008 in 12 Canadian cities. Data from a national network of fixed-site monitors were used to calculate daily maximum O3 concentrations for each city. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate city-specific odds ratios (ORs) relative to an interquartile range (IQR) increase in O3 adjusted for temperature and relative humidity. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to derive a pooled risk estimate. Stratified analyses were used to estimate associations separately for perforated and nonperforated appendicitis. RESULTS: Overall, a 16-ppb increase in the 7-day cumulative average daily maximum O3 concentration was associated with all appendicitis cases across the 12 cities (pooled OR = 1.07; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.13). The association was stronger among patients presenting with perforated appendicitis for the 7-day average (pooled OR = 1.22; 95% CI: 1.09, 1.36) when compared with the corresponding estimate for nonperforated appendicitis [7-day average (pooled OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.95, 1.09)]. Heterogeneity was not statistically significant across cities for either perforated or nonperforated appendicitis (p > 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of ambient O3 exposure may increase the risk of perforated appendicitis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".