MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2983857761 · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2019.108924

Fine particulate air pollution and human mortality: 25+ years of cohort studies

2019· review· en· W2983857761 on OpenAlexaff
C. Arden Pope, Nathan Coleman, Zachari A. Pond, Richard T. Burnett

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsCohortEnvironmental healthCohort studyEpidemiologyParticulatesAir pollutionMedicineParticulate pollutionMeta-analysisGerontologyDemographyPathologyBiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) contributes to increased risk of mortality comes from survival studies of cohorts of individuals. Although the first two of these studies, published in the mid-1990s, were highly controversial, much has changed in the last 25 + years. The objectives of this paper are to succinctly compile and summarize the findings of these cohort studies using meta-analytic tools and to address several of the key controversies. Independent reanalysis and substantial extended analysis of the original cohort studies have been conducted and many additional studies using a wide variety of cohorts, including cohorts constructed from public data and leveraging natural experiments have been published. Meta-analytic estimates of the mean of the distribution of effects from cohort studies that are currently available, provide substantial evidence of adverse air pollution associations with all-cause, cardiopulmonary, and lung cancer mortality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.006
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.341
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.167 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations448
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental ResearchSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207