MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091903274 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20190160

Temporal and spatial effect of air pollution on hospital admissions for myocardial infarction: a case-crossover study

2020· article· en· W3091903274 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Xiaoxiao Liu, Stefania Bertazzon, Paul J. Villeneuve, Markey Johnson, Dave Stieb, Stephanie Coward, Divine Tanyingoh, Joseph W. Windsor, Fox E. Underwood, Michael D. Hill, Doreen M. Rabi, William A. Ghali, Stephen B. Wilton, Matthew T. James, Michelle M. Graham, M. Sean McMurtry, Gilaad G. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of AlbertaHealth CanadaMontreal Heart InstituteAir Canada
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsAir pollutionParticulatesOdds ratioNitrogen dioxideAir quality indexConditional logistic regressionEnvironmental scienceMedicineConfidence intervalPollutionEnvironmental healthMeteorologyGeographyInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In studies showing associations between ambient air pollution and myocardial infarction (MI), data have been lacking on the inherent spatial variability of air pollution. The aim of this study was to determine whether the long-term spatial distribution of air pollution influences short-term temporal associations between air pollution and admission to hospital for MI. METHODS: concentrations derived from land use regression models; results of these analyses are presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RESULTS: tertiles, the AQHI score was associated with MI (e.g., 5-day average OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.02-1.24, per IQR; 3-day average OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.04-1.23, per IQR). INTERPRETATION: concentrations. Individuals living in neighbourhoods with higher traffic-related pollution should be advised of the health risks and be attentive to special air quality warnings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207