Burden of cardiovascular diseases associated with fine particulate matter in Beijing, China: an economic modelling study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the economic and humanistic burden associated with cardiovascular diseases that were attributable to fine particulate matter (≤ 2.5 μg/m3 in aerodynamic diameter; PM2.5) in Beijing. Methods This study used a health economic modelling approach to compare the actual annual average PM2.5 concentration with the PM2.5 concentration limit (35 µg/m3) as defined by the Chinese Ambient Air Quality Standard in terms of cardiovascular disease outcomes in Beijing adult population. The outcomes included medical costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and net monetary loss (NML). Beijing annual average PM2.5 concentration was around 105 µg/m3 during 2013–2015. Therefore, we estimated the differences in cardiovascular outcomes of Beijing adults between exposure to the PM2.5 concentration of 105 µg/m3 and exposure to the concentration of 35 µg/m3. According to WHO estimates, the hazard ratios of coronary heart disease and stroke associated with the increase of PM2.5 concentration from 35 to 105 µg/m3 were 1.15 and 1.29, respectively. Results The total 1-year excess medical costs of cardiovascular diseases associated with PM2.5 pollution in Beijing was US$147.9 million and the total 1-year QALY loss was 92 574 in 2015, amounting to an NML of US$2281.8 million. The expected lifetime incremental costs for a male Beijing adult and a female Beijing adult were US$237 and US$163, the corresponding QALY loss was 0.14 and 0.12, and the corresponding NML was US$3514 and US$2935. Conclusions PM2.5-related cardiovascular diseases imposed high economic and QALY burden on Beijing society. Continuous and intensive investment on reducing PM2.5 concentration is warranted even when only cardiovascular benefits are considered.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Simulation or modeling | high |
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".