The probability of diabetes and hypertension by levels of neighborhood walkability and traffic-related air pollution across 15 municipalities in Southern Ontario, Canada: A dataset derived from 2,496,458 community dwelling-adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals’ risk for cardiovascular disease is shaped by lifestyle factors such as participation in physical activity. Some studies have suggested that rates of physical activity may be higher in walkable neighborhoods that are more supportive of engaging in physical activity in daily life. However, walkable neighborhoods may also contain increased levels of traffic-related air pollution (TRAP). Traffic-related air pollution, often measured through a surrogate marker (e.g. NO2), has been associated cardiovascular disease risk and risk factors [1], [2], [3], [4]. The higher levels of TRAP in walkable neighborhoods may in turn increase the likelihood of developing conditions like hypertension and diabetes. Our recent work assessed how walkability and TRAP jointly affect the odds of diabetes and hypertension in a sample of community-dwelling adults from Southern Ontario, Canada [5]. This article contains additional data on the probability and odds of hypertension and diabetes according to their walkability and TRAP exposures. Data on cardiovascular risk factors were collected using health administrative databases and environmental exposures were assessed using national land use regression models predicting ground level concentrations of NO2 and validated walkability indices. The included data were generated using logistic regression accounting for exposures, covariates, and neighborhood clustering. These data may be used as primary data in future health risk assessments and systematic reviews, or to aid in the design of studies examining interactions between built environment and TRAP exposures (e.g. sample size calculations).
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".