Indoor PM2.5, VOCs and asthma outcomes: A systematic review in adults and their home environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: As the amount of time people spend indoors increases globally, exposure to indoor air pollutants has become an important public health concern. Asthma is a complex disease caused and/or exacerbated by increased exposure to diverse chemical, physical and biological exposures from multiple indoor and outdoor sources. This review aims to investigate the relationship between increased indoor PM and VOC concentrations (i.e. objectively measured) and the risk of adult asthma in higher-income countries. METHODS: Eleven databases were systematically searched on the February 1, 2019 and again on the February 2, 2020. Articles were limited to those published since 1990. Reference lists were independently screened by three reviewers and authors were contacted to identify relevant articles. Backwards and forward citation chasing was used to identify further studies. Data were extracted from included studies meeting our eligibility criteria by three reviewers and assessed for quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale designed for case-control and cohort studies. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in a narrative synthesis. We found insufficient evidence to determine the effect of PM2.5 on asthma in the indoor home environment. However, there was strong evidence to suggest that VOCs, especially aromatic compounds, and aliphatic compounds, were associated with increased asthma symptoms. DISCUSSION & CONCLUSION: Although no single exposure appears to be responsible for the development of asthma or its associated symptoms, the use of everyday products may be associated with increased asthma symptoms. To prevent poor health outcomes among the general population, health professionals and industry must make a concerted effort to better inform the general population of the importance of appropriate use of and storage of chemicals within the home as well as better health messaging on product labelling.
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 | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".