Traffic related air pollution and noise on cardiovascular outcomes: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: This study financed by the National Collaborating Centre for Environmental Health aim of this review was to assess the confounding effect of one traffic-related exposure (noise or air pollutants) on the association between the other exposure and cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: A systematic review of English and French literature was conducted with the bibliographic databases Medlines and Embase. The confounding effects in studies were assessed by using the change in the point estimate with a cut-off point 10%. Results: The literature search yield 180 articles; 9 articles met our selection criteria. For most studies, the modification of the association between traffic-related noise or air pollutants vis-à-vis cardiovascular outcomes produced changes in point estimates lower than 10%. However, the results were inconsistent when assessing the effects on blood pressure, which may underlie the presence of a small confounding effect. Conclusion: The results from this review suggest that important confounding of cardiovascular effects by traffic-related noise or reported air pollutants is unlikely. Studies with a standardized methodology and assessing the effects of specific traffic-related pollutants are needed to properly assess confounding 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.005 |
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".