Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease associated with biomass fuel use in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major and growing cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. The global prevalence of COPD is growing faster in women than in men. Women are often exposed to indoor pollutants produced by biomass fuels burning during household activities. METHODS: We conducted a meta-analysis to establish the association between COPD and exposure to biomass smoke in women.Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we searched MEDLINE and Scopus databases in 31December 2016, with the terms: "wood", "charcoal", "biomass", "solid fuels", "organic fuel", "biofuel", "female", "women", "COPD", "chronic bronchitis", "emphysema", "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease". Studies were eligible if they were case-control or cross-sectional studies involving exposure to indoor biomass smoke, conducted at any time and in any geographic location. Fixed-effects or random-effects meta-analysis was used to generate pooled OR. RESULTS: 24 studies were included: 5 case-control studies and 19 cross-sectional studies. Biomass-exposed individuals were 1.38 times more likely to be diagnosed with COPD than non-exposed (OR 1.38, 95% CI 1.28 to 1.57).Spirometry-diagnosed COPD studies failed to show a significant association (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.40). Nevertheless, the summary estimate of OR for chronic bronchitis (CB) was significant (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.70 to 2.52). The pooled OR for cross-sectional studies and case-control studies were respectively 1.82 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.10) and 1.05 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.30). Significant association was found between COPD and biomass smoke exposure for women living as well in rural as in urban areas. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that biomass smoke exposure is associated with COPD in rural and urban women.In many developing countries, modern fuels are more and more used alongside traditional ones, mainly in urban area. Data are needed to further explore the benefit of the use of mixed fuels for cooking on respiratory health, particularly on COPD reduction.
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 | 0.012 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".