Indoor CO <sub>2</sub> concentrations and cognitive function: A critical review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Poor indoor air quality indicated by elevated indoor CO2 concentrations has been linked with impaired cognitive function, yet current findings of the cognitive impact of CO2 are inconsistent. This review summarizes the results from 37 experimental studies that conducted objective cognitive tests with manipulated CO2 concentrations, either through adding pure CO2 or adjusting ventilation rates (the latter also affects other indoor pollutants). Studies with varied designs suggested that both approaches can affect multiple cognitive functions. In a subset of studies that meet objective criteria for strength and consistency, pure CO2 at a concentration common in indoor environments was only found to affect high-level decision-making measured by the Strategic Management Simulation battery in non-specialized populations, while lower ventilation and accumulation of indoor pollutants, including CO2, could reduce the speed of various functions but leave accuracy unaffected. Major confounding factors include variations in cognitive assessment methods, study designs, individual and populational differences in subjects, and uncertainties in exposure doses. Accordingly, future research is suggested to adopt direct air delivery for precise control of CO2 inhalation, include brain imaging techniques to better understand the underlying mechanisms that link CO2 and cognitive function, and explore the potential interaction between CO2 and other environmental stimuli.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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 it