Air pollution, aeroallergens and suicidality: a review of the effects of air pollution and aeroallergens on suicidal behavior and an exploration of possible mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Risk factors for suicide can be broadly categorized as sociodemographic, clinical and treatment. There is interest in environmental risk and protection factors for suicide. Emerging evidence suggests a link between environmental factors in the form of air pollution and aeroallergens in relation to suicidality. METHODS: Herein, we conducted a systematic review of 15 articles which have met inclusion criteria on the aforementioned effects. RESULTS: The majority of the reviewed articles reported an increased suicide risk alongside increased air pollutants or aeroallergens (i.e. pollen) increase; however, not all environmental factors were explored equally. In specific, studies that were delimited to evaluating particulate matter (PM) reported a consistent association with suicidality. We also provide a brief description of putative mechanisms (e.g. inflammation and neurotransmitter dysregulation) that may mediate the association between air pollution, aeroallergens and suicidality. CONCLUSION: Available evidence suggests that exposure to harmful air quality may be associated with suicidality. There are significant public health implications which are amplified in regions and countries with greater levels of air pollution and aeroallergens. In addition, those with atopic sensitivity may represent a specific subgroup that is at risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".