MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

P2544Risk of cardiovascular death by long-term solid fuel use for cooking and implications of switching to clean fuels: a prospective cohort study of 340,000 chinese adults

2018· article· en· W2889431644 on OpenAlexaff
Ka Hung Chan, Derrick Bennett, Hubert Lam, Om Kurmi, Zhengming Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityPopulation Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProspective cohort studyTerm (time)CohortSolid fuelCohort studyEnvironmental healthWaste managementIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCombustion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Household air pollution from solid fuel use is estimated to be a leading cause of cardiovascular disease (CVD) mortality, but prospective evidence is limited. Purpose: To examine the association of solid fuel use for cooking with CVD deaths and the potential implications of switching from solid to clean fuels. Methods: In 0.5 million adults aged 30–79 years recruited from ten areas of China in 2004–2008, self-reported cooking frequency and primary fuel type used for cooking (clean fuels: electricity or gas; solid fuels: coal, wood or charcoal) were assessed. Duration of exposure was estimated based on information collected on the participant's three most recent residences. Mortality data up to 1 January 2017 were ascertained via linkage to death registries and hospitalisation records. The analyses were restricted to participants who cooked at least weekly throughout the recall period and had no self-reported prior history of CVD at baseline. Cox regression stratified for age-at-risk, sex and study areas yielded hazard ratios (HRs) adjusted for smoking, education, and other established confounders. Analyses also assessed the associations per 10 years longer duration of exposure.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart JournalSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207