Centralizing environmental datasets to support (inter)national chronic disease research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whereas environmental data are increasingly available, it is often not clear how or if datasets are available for health research. Exposure metrics are typically developed for specific research initiatives using disparate exposure assessment methods and no mechanisms are put in place for centralizing, archiving, or distributing environmental datasets. In parallel, potentially vast amounts of environmental data are emerging due to new technologies such as high resolution imagery and machine learning. OBJECTIVES: The Canadian Urban Environmental Health Research Consortium (CANUE) and the Geoscience and Health Cohort Consortium (GECCO) provide a proof of concept that centralizing and disseminating environmental data for health research is valuable and can accelerate discovery. In this essay, we argue that more efficient use of exposure data for environmental epidemiological research over the next decade requires progress in four key areas: metadata and data access portals, linkage with health databases, harmonization of exposure measures and models over large areas, and leveraging "big data" streams for exposure characterization and evaluation of temporal changes. DISCUSSION: Optimizing the use of existing environmental data and exploiting emerging data streams can provide unprecedented research opportunities in environmental epidemiology through a better characterization of individuals' exposures and the ability to study the intersecting impacts of multiple environmental features or urban attributes across different populations around the world. Proper documentation, linkage, and dissemination of new and emerging exposure data leads to a better awareness of data availability, a reduction of duplication of effort and increases research output.
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 | 0.090 | 0.163 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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 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".