Effect of outdoor particulate air pollution on FEV<sub>1</sub>in healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of acute and long-term exposures to outdoor particulate air pollution on lung function in healthy adults is not well established. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of studies that assessed the relationship of outdoor particulate air pollution and lung function in healthy adults. Studies that contained data on outdoor air particulate matter levels (PM10or PM2.5) and forced expiratory volume in 1 s (FEV1) in healthy adults were eligible for inclusion. Effect estimates, in relation to long-term and acute exposures, were quantified separately using random effects models. A total of 27 effect estimates from 23 studies were included in this review. Acute exposures were typically assessed with PM2.5, while long-term exposures were predominantly represented by PM10. A 10 µg/m3 increase in short-term PM2.5exposure (days) was associated with a −7.02 mL (95% CI −11.75 to –2.29) change in FEV1. A 10 µg/m3difference in long-term PM10exposure was associated with a −8.72 mL (95% CI −15.39 to –2.07) annual change in FEV1and an absolute difference in FEV1of −71.36 mL (95% CI −134.47 to –8.24). This study provides evidence that acute and long-term exposure to outdoor particulate air pollution are associated with decreased FEV1in healthy adults. Residual confounding from other risk factors, such as smoking, may explain some of the effect for long-term exposures. More studies are required to determine the relationship of long-term exposure to PM2.5and short-term exposure to PM10, which may have different biologic mechanisms.
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 | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".