Within-City Variation in Reactive Oxygen Species from Fine Particle Air Pollution and COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Evidence linking outdoor air pollution with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) incidence and mortality is largely based on ecological comparisons between regions that may differ in factors such as access to testing and control measures that may not be independent of air pollution concentrations. Moreover, studies have yet to focus on key mechanisms of air pollution toxicity such as oxidative stress. Objectives To conduct a within-city analysis of spatial variations in COVID-19 incidence and the estimated generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in lung lining fluid attributable to fine particulate matter (particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter ⩽2.5 μm [PM2.5]). Methods Sporadic and outbreak-related COVID-19 case counts, testing data, population data, and sociodemographic data for 140 neighborhoods were obtained from the City of Toronto. ROS estimates were based on a mathematical model of ROS generation in lung lining fluid in response to iron and copper in PM2.5. Spatial variations in long-term average ROS were predicted using a land-use regression model derived from measurements of iron and copper in PM2.5. Data were analyzed using negative binomial regression models adjusting for covariates identified using a directed acyclic graph and accounting for spatial autocorrelation. Measurements and Main Results A significant positive association was observed between neighborhood-level ROS and COVID-19 incidence (incidence rate ratio = 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.01–1.15 per interquartile range ROS). Effect modification by neighborhood-level measures of racialized group membership and socioeconomic status was also identified. Conclusions Examination of neighborhood characteristics associated with COVID-19 incidence can identify inequalities and generate hypotheses for future studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".