Health in occupants of energy efficient new homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: A prospective telephone-administered questionnaire study in new home occupants compared general and respiratory health at occupancy and 1 year later in two groups. The test group or cases, was 52 R-2000(TM) homes (128 occupants) built to preset and certified criteria for energy efficient ventilation and construction practices. The control group were 53 new homes (149 occupants) built in the same year in the same geographic area and price range. Analyzed by household, case occupants' summative symptom scores improved significantly over the year of occupancy (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P < 0.006). Analysis of variance of individuals' total symptom scores showed a significant effect of the type of house (P < 0.0001), with lower change of scores in case buildings, but not of age or sex. In comparison with control homes, occupants of case homes reported more improvement in throat irritation (P < 0.004), cough (P < 0.002), fatigue (P < 0.009) and irritability (P < 0.002) with the main change in symptom category being from 'sometimes' to 'never'. Further extension of this pilot study is required to determine if these perceived health benefits are reproducible and/or relate to objective indoor air quality measures. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: New occupants of energy efficient homes with heat recovery ventilators report improvement over 1 year in the symptoms of throat irritation, cough, fatigue, and irritability in comparison with control new home occupants. If this pilot study is reproducible and shown to relate to indoor air quality, prospective new home buyers may be interested in obtaining this health information prior to decision making.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".