Spatial Analysis of Air Pollution and Mortality in Los Angeles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assessment of air pollution exposure using only community average concentrations may lead to measurement error that lowers estimates of the health burden attributable to poor air quality. To test this hypothesis, we modeled the association between air pollution and mortality using small-area exposure measures in Los Angeles, California. METHODS: Data on 22,905 subjects were extracted from the American Cancer Society cohort for the period 1982-2000 (5,856 deaths). Pollution exposures were interpolated from 23 fine particle (PM2.5) and 42 ozone (O3) fixed-site monitors. Proximity to expressways was tested as a measure of traffic pollution. We assessed associations in standard and spatial multilevel Cox regression models. RESULTS: After controlling for 44 individual covariates, all-cause mortality had a relative risk (RR) of 1.17 (95% confidence interval=1.05-1.30) for an increase of 10 mug/m PM2.5 and a RR of 1.11 (0.99-1.25) with maximal control for both individual and contextual confounders. The RRs for mortality resulting from ischemic heart disease and lung cancer deaths were elevated, in the range of 1.24-1.6, depending on the model used. These PM results were robust to adjustments for O3 and expressway exposure. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest the chronic health effects associated with within-city gradients in exposure to PM2.5 may be even larger than previously reported across metropolitan areas. We observed effects nearly 3 times greater than in models relying on comparisons between communities. We also found specificity in cause of death, with PM2.5 associated more strongly with ischemic heart disease than with cardiopulmonary or all-cause mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".