Exposure to PM2.5 via vascular endothelial growth factor relationship: Meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the association of PM2.5 exposure with VEGF by conducting a systematic review of existing literature and performing a meta-analysis. We searched all the studies published in the Cochrane Library, PUBMED, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and WanFang Electronic Database before June 2017. Finally six studies were identified. It confirmed that the increase in VEGF (β = 1.23 pg/ml, 95% CI: 0.45, 2.01) was significantly associated with the PM2.5 mass concentration of 10 μg/m3. Studies from Canada showed that PM2.5 exposure statistically elevated the level of VEGF level that an increase of 1.20 pg/ml (95% CI: 0.88, 1.52) in VEGF was associated with per 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 concentration. Other subgroup analyses indicated that the effects of PM2.5 exposure on VEGF differed per the in different exposure assessment methods, study designs, and study settings. It was concluded that elevated VEGF levels was significantly positive associated with PM2.5 exposure. Exposure assessment methods and study countries were the major sources of heterogeneity among studies.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".