Ambient Fine Particulate Matter Air Pollution and Risk of Weight Gain and Obesity in United States Veterans: An Observational Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Experimental evidence and studies of children and adolescents suggest that ambient fine particulate matter [particulate matter ≤2.5μm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5)] air pollution may be obesogenic, but the relationship between PM2.5 and the risk of body weight gain and obesity in adults is uncertain. Objectives: Our goal was to characterize the association between PM2.5 and the risks of weight gain and obesity. Methods: We followed 3,902,440 U.S. Veterans from 2010 to 2018 (median 8.1 y, interquartile range: 7.3–8.4) and assigned time-updated PM2.5 exposures by linking geocoded residential street addresses with satellite-based estimates of surface-level PM2.5 mass (at ∼1-km2 resolution). Associations with PM2.5 were estimated using Cox proportional hazards models for incident obesity [body mass index (BMI)≥30 kg/m2] and a 10-lb increase in weight relative to baseline and linear mixed models for associations with intra-individual changes in BMI and weight. Results: A 10-μg/m3 higher average annual PM2.5 concentration was associated with risk of incident obesity [n=2,325,769; hazard ratio (HR)=1.08 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.11)] and the risk of a 10-lb (4.54 kg) increase in weight [HR=1.07 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.08)] and with higher intra-individual changes in BMI [0.140 kg/m2 per year (95% CI: 0.139, 0.142)] and weight [0.968 lb/y (95% CI: 0.955, 0.981)]. Nonlinear exposure–response models indicated associations at PM2.5 concentrations below the national standard of 12 μg/m3. As expected, a negative exposure control (ambient air sodium) was not associated with obesity or weight gain. Associations were consistent in direction and magnitude across sensitivity analyses that included alternative outcomes and exposures assigned at different spatial resolutions. Discussion: PM2.5 air pollution was associated with the risk of obesity and weight gain in a large predominantly male cohort of U.S. Veterans. Discussions about health effects of PM2.5 should include its association with obesity, and deliberations about the epidemiology of obesity should consider its association with PM2.5. Investigation in other cohorts will deepen our understanding of the relationship between PM2.5 and weight gain and obesity. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP7944
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".