An Investigation of Thresholds in Air Pollution-Mortality Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper we introduce and implement new techniques to investigate threshold effects in air pollution-mortality relationships. Our key interest is in measuring the dose-response relationship above and below a given threshold level where we allow for a large number of potential explanatory variables to trigger the threshold effect. This is in contrast to existing approaches that usually focus on a single threshold trigger. We allow for a myriad of threshold effects within a Bayesian statistical framework that accounts for model uncertainty (i.e. uncertainty about which threshold trigger and explanatory variables are appropriate). We apply these techniques in an empirical exercise using daily data from Toronto for 1992-1997. We investigate the existence and nature of threshold effects in the relationship between mortality and ozone (O3), total particulate matter (PM) and an index of other conventionally occurring air pollutants. In general, we find the effects of our considered pollutants on mortality to be statistically indistinguishable from zero with no evidence of thresholds. The one exception is ozone, for which results present an ambiguous picture. Ozone has no significant effect on mortality when we exclude threshold effects from the analysis. Allowing for thresholds we find a positive and significant effect for this pollutant when the threshold trigger is the average change in ozone two days ago. However, this significant effect is not observed after controlling for PM.
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 | 0.007 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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, 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".