Survey of Ambient Air Pollution Health Risk Assessment Tools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing air quality policies that improve public health can benefit from information about air pollution health risks and impacts, which include respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and premature death. Several computer-based tools help automate air pollution health impact assessments and are being used for a variety of contexts. Expanding information gathered for a May 2014 World Health Organization expert meeting, we survey 12 multinational air pollution health impact assessment tools, categorize them according to key technical and operational characteristics, and identify limitations and challenges. Key characteristics include spatial resolution, pollutants and health effect outcomes evaluated, and method for characterizing population exposure, as well as tool format, accessibility, complexity, and degree of peer review and application in policy contexts. While many of the tools use common data sources for concentration-response associations, population, and baseline mortality rates, they vary in the exposure information source, format, and degree of technical complexity. We find that there is an important tradeoff between technical refinement and accessibility for a broad range of applications. Analysts should apply tools that provide the appropriate geographic scope, resolution, and maximum degree of technical rigor for the intended assessment, within resources constraints. A systematic intercomparison of the tools' inputs, assumptions, calculations, and results would be helpful to determine the appropriateness of each for different types of assessment. Future work would benefit from accounting for multiple uncertainty sources and integrating ambient air pollution health impact assessment tools with those addressing other related health risks (e.g., smoking, indoor pollution, climate change, vehicle accidents, physical activity).
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 | 0.028 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.015 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".