Abstract P066: Rationale And Design Of A Study To Test The Effect Of Personal Protective Aids On Hypertension And Diabetes In People Exposed To High Levels Of Air Pollution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Air pollution is the largest environmental cause of disease and premature death in the world today, disproportionally affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) such as India. Numerous studies have shown that exposure to particulate matter <2.5 μm (PM2.5) can contribute to cardiovascular disease and mortality, which is partially attributable to the development of cardiometabolic conditions such as hypertension and diabetes. We hypothesize that the use of personal protective aids (home air-purifier and N-95 mask) can decrease systolic blood pressure (SBP) in people with hypertension and decrease fasting blood glucose (FBG) in those with diabetes. Method: This is a prospective randomized cross-over study in Dalkhola, India- an area of high ambient PM2.5 levels. Participants between 18 and 70 years of age with hypertension (n=130) and diabetes (n=33) will be invited to participate in the study. They will be randomized to either an intervention or control arm for 4 weeks, after which they will cross over to the other arm following a 2-week washout period. The intervention period will consist of using an indoor air-purifier at night and an N-95 mask when outdoors. Control period will involve using an identical air purifier and facemask, with the filter removed (sham filtration). Participants and outcome assessors will be blinded. Outcome evaluation: The primary outcome of the study is the absolute reduction in SBP among people with hypertension and absolute reduction in FBG among people with diabetes. Discussion: This is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate personal protective aids as a therapeutic measure in people with hypertension and diabetes exposed to high levels of PM2.5. Given the high burden of air pollution in LMICs, there is an urgent need for adaptation measures targeting people at high risk for mortality from this exposure. The results of our study will demonstrate if personal protective aids can be a viable adaptation measure for people living with hypertension and diabetes in areas with a high burden of air pollution.
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 | 0.046 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.006 |
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".