MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2194745997 · doi:10.1111/jch.12720

Studies of Household Air Pollution and Subclinical Indicators of Cardiovascular Disease Fill Important Knowledge Gaps

2015· letter· en· W2194745997 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jill Baumgartner, Maggie L. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Hypertension · 2015
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnvironmental healthBlood pressureSubclinical infectionDiseaseAir pollutionCardiovascular healthInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In their article “Targeting Household Air Pollution for Curbing the Cardiovascular Disease Burden: A Health Priority in Sub-Saharan Africa,” Noubiap and colleagues review the literature on household air pollution (HAP) and cardiovascular diseases.1 They point to the lack of studies on cardiovascular events in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions where cooking and heating with solid fuels is common. They also review studies of exposure to cigarette smoke and urban air pollution (mostly in high-income countries) and associated cardiovascular endpoints, including studies of intermediary indicators of cardiovascular risk such as inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and heart rate variability. This evidence base contributes to both our knowledge of biological mechanisms linking air pollution and cardiovascular outcomes and appropriate indicators of cardiovascular risk. Linking evidence from urban air pollution and HAP, as the authors suggest, assumes that they are equally harmful to human health. Therefore, what is surprisingly absent from their review is the increasing body of evidence linking HAP with important subclinical indicators of cardiovascular diseases, including blood pressure, which is strongly and directly related to cardiovascular mortality.2 For example, a previous study in rural China found a dose-response relationship between personal exposure to HAP and blood pressure in women cooking with biomass fuels,3 and several cookstove intervention studies in Latin America found lowered blood pressure4-7 and reduced ST-segment depression8 in women with reduced exposure to HAP. Cross-sectional studies in Peru found higher blood pressure and greater prevalence of carotid atherosclerotic plaque among biomass users compared with users of gaseous fuels9, 10 and a small feasibility study in China found some evidence of an association between exposure to biomass smoke and arterial stiffness.11 Controlled evaluations conducted in high-income countries provide further evidence; short-term changes in exposure to woodsmoke were associated with arterial stiffness in a laboratory-based study of healthy Swedish adults12, 13 and an air filtration intervention resulted in improved markers of systemic inflammation and endothelial function (but not oxidative stress) among Canadian adults living in a woodsmoke-impacted community.14 We applaud Noubiap and colleagues for highlighting this important and often underrepresented global health issue to the readership of The Journal of Clinical Hypertension. We particularly appreciate the focus on energy and air pollution in sub-Saharan Africa, where much of the population is heavily impacted by exposure to HAP and its associated disease burden.15 We do, however, feel inclined to draw attention to the important omission of the growing body of research evaluating the association between HAP with these important indicators of cardiovascular disease risk. While it is our hope that this research base should be used to inform future evaluations in all regions of the world, it is certainly worth noting that few studies have been conducted in sub-Saharan Africa. Obtaining direct evidence in this region will have important public health implications and should be heavily prioritized. The authors do not have any conflicts of interest to declare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.881

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.223
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical HypertensionSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207