MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173347851 · doi:10.1016/j.envres.2021.111631

Indoor PM2.5, VOCs and asthma outcomes: A systematic review in adults and their home environments

2021· review· en· W3173347851 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicIndoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean Regional Development FundUniversity of ExeterEuropean CommissionSouth West Academic Health Science Network
KeywordsAsthmaEnvironmental healthIndoor air qualityMedicineCohort studyCohortPopulationPublic healthGeographyPathologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it