MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095740972 · doi:10.1289/ehp.1307711

Air Pollution and Atherosclerosis: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of FourEuropean Cohort Studies in the ESCAPE Study

2015· review· en· W2095740972 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Pérez, Kathrin Wolf, Frauke Hennig, Johanna Penell, Xavier Basagaña, María Foraster, Inmaculada Aguilera, David Agis, Rob Beelen, Bert Brunekreef, Josef Cyrys, Kateryna Fuks, Martin Adam, Damiano Baldassarre, Marta Cirach, Roberto Elosúa, Julia Dratva, Regina Hampel, Wolfgang Köenig, Jaume Marrugat, Ulf dé Fairé, Göran Pershagen, Nicole Probst‐Hensch, Audrey de Nazelle, Mark Nieuwenhuijsen, Wolfgang Rathmann, Marcela Rivera, Jochen Seißler, Christian Schindler, Joachim Thiery, Barbara Hoffmann, Annette Peters, Nino Künzli

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCross-sectional studyMedicineAir pollutionEnvironmental healthAir pollutantsNitrogen dioxideCohort studyCohortDemographyInternal medicineGeographyPathologyChemistryMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: In four European cohorts, we investigated the cross-sectional association between long-term exposure to air pollution and intima-media thickness of the common carotid artery (CIMT), a preclinical marker of atherosclerosis. Methods: Individually assigned levels of nitrogen dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter ≤ 2.5 μm (PM2.5), absorbance of PM2.5 (PM2.5abs), PM10, PMcoarse, and two indicators of residential proximity to highly trafficked roads were obtained under a standard exposure protocol (European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects—ESCAPE study) in the Stockholm area (Sweden), the Ausburg and Ruhr area (Germany), and the Girona area (Spain). We used linear regression and meta-analyses to examine the association between long-term exposure to air pollution and CIMT. Results: The meta-analysis with 9,183 individuals resulted in an estimated increase in CIMT (geometric mean) of 0.72% (95% CI: –0.65%, 2.10%) per 5-μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 and 0.42% (95% CI: –0.46%, 1.30%) per 10–5/m increase in PM2.5abs. Living in proximity to high traffic was also positively but not significantly associated with CIMT. Meta-analytic estimates for other pollutants were inconsistent. Results were similar across different adjustment sets and sensitivity analyses. In an extended meta-analysis for PM2.5 with three other previously published studies, a 0.78% (95% CI: –0.18%, 1.75%) increase in CIMT was estimated for a 5-μg/m3 contrast in PM2.5. Conclusions: Using a standardized exposure and analytical protocol in four European cohorts, we found that cross-sectional associations between CIMT and the eight ESCAPE markers of long-term residential air pollution exposure did not reach statistical significance. The additional meta-analysis of CIMT and PM2.5 across all published studies also was positive but not significant. Citation: Perez L, Wolf K, Hennig F, Penell J, Basagaña X, Foraster M, Aguilera I, Agis D, Beelen R, Brunekreef B, Cyrys J, Fuks KB, Adam M, Baldassarre D, Cirach M, Elosua R, Dratva J, Hampel R, Koenig W, Marrugat J, de Faire U, Pershagen G, Probst-Hensch NM, de Nazelle A, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Rathmann W, Rivera M, Seissler J, Schindler C, Thiery J, Hoffmann B, Peters A, Künzli N. 2015. Air pollution and atherosclerosis: a cross-sectional analysis of four European cohort studies in the ESCAPE Study. Environ Health Perspect 123:597–605; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307711

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.011
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.208
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations83
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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