Outdoor pollen‐related changes in lung function and markers of airway inflammation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Experimental challenge studies have shown that pollen can have early and delayed effects on the lungs and airways. Here, we qualitatively and quantitatively synthesize the evidence of outdoor pollen exposure on various lung function and airway inflammation markers in community-based studies. METHODS: Four online databases were searched: Medline, Web of Science, CINAHL and Google Scholar. The search strategy included terms relating to both exposure and outcomes. Inclusion criteria were human-based studies published in English that were representative of the community. Additionally, we only considered cross-sectional or short-term longitudinal studies which investigated pollen exposure by levels or season. Study quality assessment was performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analysis was conducted using random-effects models. RESULTS: We included 27 of 6551 studies identified from the search. Qualitative synthesis indicated associations between pollen exposure and predominantly type-2 inflammation in both the upper and lower airways, but little evidence for lung function changes. People with ever asthma and/or seasonal allergic rhinitis (SAR) were at higher risk of such airway inflammation. Meta-analysis confirmed a positive relationship between pollen season, eosinophilia and eosinophil cationic protein (ECP) in people with ever SAR but the results between studies were highly variable. Heterogeneity was reduced after further subgrouping by age, and the forest plots indicated that eosinophilic airway inflammation to outdoor pollen exposure increased with age. CONCLUSION: Among people with ever asthma and ever SAR, exposure to increased ambient pollen triggers type-2 upper and lower airway inflammation rather than a non-specific or innate inflammation. These findings can lead to the formulation of specific pollen immunotherapy for susceptible individuals. Future research should be directed towards investigating lagged associations and effect modifications using larger and more generalized populations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42020146981 (PROSPERO).
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 | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".