MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2476390268 · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehw294

Environmental stressors and cardio-metabolic disease: part II–mechanistic insights

2016· review· en· W2476390268 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas Münzel, Mette Sørensen, Tommaso Gori, Frank P. Schmidt, Xiaoquan Rao, f Robert Brook, Lung‐Chi Chen, Robert D. Brook, Sanjay Rajagopalan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesStiftung Mainzer HerzDeutsches Zentrum für Herz-Kreislaufforschung
KeywordsMedicineStressorDiseaseEnvironmental healthMechanism (biology)Diabetes mellitusEndothelial dysfunctionOxidative stressIntensive care medicineBioinformaticsPsychiatryPathologyInternal medicineEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Environmental factors can act as facilitators of chronic non-communicable diseases. Ambient noise and air pollution collectively outrank all other environmental risk factors in importance, contributing to over 75% of the disease and disability burden associated with known environmental risk factors. In the first part of this review, we discussed the global burden and epidemiologic evidence supporting the importance of these novel risk factors as facilitators of cardiometabolic disease. In this part, we will discuss pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for noise and air pollution-mediated effects. Akin to traditional cardiovascular risk factors, a considerable body of evidence suggests that these environmental agents induce low-grade inflammation, oxidative stress, vascular dysfunction, and autonomic nervous system imbalance, thereby facilitating the development of diseases such as hypertension and diabetes. Through their impact on traditional risk factors and via additional novel mechanisms, environmental risk factors may have much larger impact on cardiovascular events than currently appreciated. In the second part of this review, we discuss deficiencies and gaps in knowledge and opportunities for new research.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations366
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207