Assessing the effects of exposure to sulfuric acid aerosol on respiratory function in adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sulfuric acid aerosol is suspected to be a major contributor to mortality and morbidity associated with air pollution. The objective of the study is to determine if exposure of human participants to anticipated levels of sulfuric acid aerosol ($\sim 100μg/m^3 $) in the near future would have an adverse effect on respiratory function. We used data from 28 adults exposed to sulfuric acid for 4 hours in a controlled exposure chamber over a 3 day period with repeated measures of pulmonary function (FEV1) recorded at 2-hour intervals. Measurements were also recorded after 2 and 24 hours post exposure. We formulated a linear mixed effect model for FEV1 with fixed effects (day of treatment, hour, day-hour interaction, and smoking status), a random intercept and an AR1 covariance structure to estimate the effect of aerosol exposure on FEV1. We further assessed whether smoking status modified the exposure effects and compared the analysis to the method used by Kerr et al.,1981. The findings of the study show that the effect of day 3 exposure is negatively associated with lung function (coefficient ($β$), -0.08; 95% CI, -0.16 to -0.01). A weak negative association is also observed with increasing hours of exposure ($β$, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.00). Among the smokers, we found a significant negative association with hours of exposure ($β$, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.03 to -0.00), day 3 exposure ($β$, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.02) and a borderline adverse effect for day 2 treatment ($β$, -0.06; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.03) whilst no significant association was observed for nonsmokers. In conclusion, anticipated deposits of sulfuric acid aerosol in the near would adversely affect respiratory function. The effect observed in smokers is significantly more adverse than in nonsmokers.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".