Review of the effect of air pollution exposure from industrial point sources on asthma-related effects in childhood
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We reviewed epidemiologic studies of the association between exposure to air pollution from industries and asthma-related outcomes in childhood. We searched bibliographic databases and reference lists of relevant articles to identify studies examining the association between children’s exposure to air pollution from industrial point-sources and asthma-related outcomes, including asthma, asthma-like symptoms, wheezing, and bronchiolitis. We extracted key characteristics of each study and when appropriate we performed a random-effects meta-analysis of results and quantified heterogeneity (I 2). Thirty-six studies were included in this review. Meta-analysis was generally not possible and limited to a few studies because of substantial variation across design characteristics and methodologies. In case-crossover studies using administrative health data, pooled odds ratio (OR) of hospitalization for asthma and bronchiolitis in children <5 years were 1.02 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.96, 1.08; I 2 = 56%] and 1.01 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.05; I 2 = 64%) per 10 ppb increase in the daily mean and hourly maximum concentration of sulfur dioxide (SO2), respectively. For PM2.5, pooled ORs were 1.02 (95% CI: 0.93, 1.10; I 2 = 56%) and 1.01 (95% CI: 0.98, 1.03 I 2 = 33%) per 10 μg/m3 increment in the daily mean and hourly maximum concentration. In cross-sectional studies using questionnaires, pooled ORs for the prevalence of asthma and wheezing in relation to residential proximity to industry were 1.98 (95% CI: 0.87, 3.09; I 2 =71%) and 1.33 (95% CI: 0.86, 1.79; I 2= 65%), respectively. In conclusion, this review showed substantial heterogeneity across study designs and methods. Meta-analysis results suggested no evidence of an association for short-term asthma-related effects and an indication for long-term effects, but heterogeneity between results and limitations in terms of design and exposure assessment preclude drawing definite conclusions. Further well-conducted studies making use of a longitudinal design and of refined exposure assessment methods are needed to improve risk estimates.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".