Conjunctivitis and Exposure to Ambient Ozone
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to assess the concentration-response relations between conjunctivitis and exposure to ambient ozone. This retrospective study includes emergency department (ED) visits for conjunctivitis in Edmonton, Canada, for the period April 1992 – March 2002. Daily average levels of ozone, of temperature and relative humidity were estimated and used for the period of the study. For each of the considered exposure lags, from 0 to 9 days, six various models were fitted to estimate the concentration-response function. The goodness of fit was assessed using Akaike information criterion. During the period of the study, 17,211 ED visits for conjunctivitis were recorded and used. For all subjects together, a positive statistically significant association was obtained for the exposure lagged by 5 days. For female subjects, lags 1, 3, and 9 had positive statistically significant associations (lag 2 had negative associations). For male subjects only lag 5 had a positive statistically significant association. The estimated non-linear concentration-response functions for the considered groups (all, males, females) and lags, revealed the associations along the exposure levels. The fitted shapes are described by the parameters and may have various forms. The estimated function are useful to determine the risk associated with exposure to ground-level ozone.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".