Comparison of temperature-mortality associations estimated with different exposure metrics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of the short-term association between ambient temperature and mortality often use temperature observations from a single monitoring station, frequently located at the nearest airport, to represent the exposure of individuals living across large areas. Population-weighted temperature estimates constructed from gridded meteorological data may offer an opportunity to improve exposure assessment in locations where station observations do not fully capture the average exposure of the population of interest. METHODS: We compared the association between daily mean temperature and mortality in each of 113 United States counties using (1) temperature observations from a single weather station and (2) population-weighted temperature estimates constructed from a gridded meteorological dataset. We used distributed lag nonlinear models to estimate the 21-day cumulative association between temperature and mortality in each county, 1987-2006, adjusting for seasonal and long-term trends, day of week, and holidays. RESULTS: In the majority (73.4%) of counties, the relative risk of death on extremely hot days (99th percentile of weather station temperature) versus the minimum mortality temperature was larger when generated from the population-weighted estimates. In contrast, relative risks on extremely cold days (first percentile of weather station temperature) were often larger when generated from the weather station observations. In most counties, the difference in associations estimated from the two temperature metrics was small. CONCLUSIONS: In a large, multi-site analysis, temperature-mortality associations were largely similar when estimated from weather station observations versus population-weighted temperature estimates. However, spatially refined exposure data may be more appropriate for analyses seeking to elucidate local health effects.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 teacher head, 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".