Mortality-Air Pollution Associations in Low Exposure Environments (MAPLE): Phase 2.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: ) observed throughout Canada. METHODS: . Both existing and targeted ground-based measurements were analyzed to develop improved exposure data sets for subsequent epidemiological analyses. exposures for subjects whose ages ranged from 25 to 90 years. About 8.5 million were from three Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC) analytic files and another 540,900 were Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) participants. Mortality was linked through the year 2016. Hazard ratios (HR) were estimated with Cox Proportional Hazard models using a 3-year moving average exposure with a 1-year lag, with the year of follow-up as the time axis. All models were stratified by 5-year age groups, sex, and immigrant status. Covariates were based on directed acyclical graphs (DAG), and included contextual variables (airshed, community size, neighborhood dependence, neighborhood deprivation, ethnic concentration, neighborhood instability, and urban form). A second model was examined including the DAG-based covariates as well as all subject-level risk factors (income, education, marital status, indigenous identity, employment status, occupational class, and visible minority status) available in each cohort. Additional subject-level behavioral covariates (fruit and vegetable consumption, leisure exercise frequency, alcohol consumption, smoking, and body mass index [BMI]) were included in the CCHS analysis. -mortality association was examined by first fitting restricted cubic splines (RCS) with a large number of knots and then fitting the shape-constrained health impact function (SCHIF) to the RCS predictions and their standard errors (SE). This method provides graphical results indicating the RCS predictions, as a nonparametric means of characterizing the concentration-response relationship in detail and the resulting mean SCHIF and accompanying uncertainty as a parametric summary. and these covariates within the CCHS. RESULTS: ) were similar for the 1991 (1.041, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.016-1.066) and 1996 (1.041, 1.024-1.059) CanCHEC cohorts with a larger estimate observed for the 2001 cohort (1.084, 1.060-1.108). The pooled cohort HR estimate was 1.053 (1.041-1.065). In the CCHS an analogous model indicated a HR of 1.13 (95% CI: 1.06-1.21), which was reduced slightly with the addition of behavioral covariates (1.11, 1.04-1.18). In each of the CanCHEC cohorts, the RCS increased rapidly over lower concentrations, slightly declining between the 25th and 75th percentiles and then increasing beyond the 75th percentile. The steepness of the increase in the RCS over lower concentrations diminished as the cohort start date increased. The SCHIFs displayed a supralinear association in each of the three CanCHEC cohorts and in the CCHS cohort. was similar to or larger than that for nonimmigrants, with differences between immigrants and nonimmigrants decreasing in the more recent cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: . This relationship was supralinear with no apparent threshold or sublinear association.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".