MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782628790 · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(17)30185-7

Effect of air quality alerts on human health: a regression discontinuity analysis in Toronto, Canada

2018· article· en· W2782628790 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Hong Chen, Qiongsi Li, Jay S. Kaufman, Jun Wang, Ray Copes, Yushan Su, Tarik Benmarhnia

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Planetary Health · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and ParksInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentrePublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada Research ChairsInstitute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
KeywordsMedicineEmergency departmentRegression discontinuity designAsthmaEnvironmental healthAir quality indexPopulationCOPDAir pollutionCohortEmergency medicinePublic healthDemographyGeographyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Ambient air pollution is a major health risk globally. To reduce adverse health effects on days when air pollution is high, government agencies worldwide have implemented air quality alert programmes. Despite their widespread use, little is known about whether these programmes produce any observable public-health benefits. We assessed the effectiveness of such programmes using a quasi-experimental approach. METHODS: We assembled a population-based cohort comprising all individuals who resided in the city of Toronto (Ontario, Canada) from 2003 to 2012 (about 2·6 million people). We ascertained seven health outcomes known to be affected by short-term elevation of air pollution, using provincial health administrative databases. These health outcomes were cardiovascular-related mortality, respiratory-related mortality, and hospital admissions or emergency-department visits for acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, stroke, asthma, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). We applied a regression discontinuity design to assess the effectiveness of an intervention (ie, the air quality alert programme). To quantify the effect of the air quality alert programme, we estimated for each outcome both the absolute rate difference and the rate ratio attributable to programme eligibility (by intention-to-treat analysis) and the alerts themselves (by two-stage regression approach), respectively. FINDINGS: Between Jan 1, 2003, and Dec 31, 2012, on average between three and 27 daily cardiovascular or respiratory events were reported in Toronto (depending on the outcome). Alert announcements reduced asthma-related emergency-department visits by 4·73 cases per 1 000 000 people per day (95% CI 0·55-9·38), or in relative terms by 25% (95% CI 1-47). Programme eligibility also led to 2·05 (95% CI 0·07-4·00) fewer daily emergency-department visits for asthma. We did not detect a significant reduction in any other health outcome as a result of alert announcements or programme eligibility. However, a non-significant trend was noted towards decreased asthma-related and COPD-related admissions. INTERPRETATION: In this population-based cohort, the air quality alert programme was related to some reductions in respiratory morbidity, but not any other health outcome examined. This finding suggests that issuing air quality alerts alone has a limited effect on public health and that implementing enforced public actions to reduce air pollution on high pollution days could be warranted. Together with accumulating evidence of substantial burden from long-term air pollution exposure, this study underscores the need for further strengthening of global efforts that can lead to long-term improvement of overall air quality. FUNDING: Public Health Ontario, Canadian Institutes for Health 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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations90
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Planetary HealthSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207