Mortality risk attributable to wildfire-related PM2·5 pollution: a global time series study in 749 locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Many regions of the world are now facing more frequent and unprecedentedly large wildfires. However, the association between wildfire-related PM 2·5 and mortality has not been well characterised. We aimed to comprehensively assess the association between short-term exposure to wildfire-related PM 2·5 and mortality across various regions of the world. Methods For this time series study, data on daily counts of deaths for all causes, cardiovascular causes, and respiratory causes were collected from 749 cities in 43 countries and regions during 2000–16. Daily concentrations of wildfire-related PM 2·5 were estimated using the three-dimensional chemical transport model GEOS-Chem at a 0·25° × 0·25° resolution. The association between wildfire-related PM 2·5 exposure and mortality was examined using a quasi-Poisson time series model in each city considering both the current-day and lag effects, and the effect estimates were then pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Based on these pooled effect estimates, the population attributable fraction and relative risk (RR) of annual mortality due to acute wildfire-related PM 2·5 exposure was calculated. Findings 65·6 million all-cause deaths, 15·1 million cardiovascular deaths, and 6·8 million respiratory deaths were included in our analyses. The pooled RRs of mortality associated with each 10 μg/m 3 increase in the 3-day moving average (lag 0–2 days) of wildfire-related PM 2·5 exposure were 1·019 (95% CI 1·016–1·022) for all-cause mortality, 1·017 (1·012–1·021) for cardiovascular mortality, and 1·019 (1·013–1·025) for respiratory mortality. Overall, 0·62% (95% CI 0·48–0·75) of all-cause deaths, 0·55% (0·43–0·67) of cardiovascular deaths, and 0·64% (0·50–0·78) of respiratory deaths were annually attributable to the acute impacts of wildfire-related PM 2·5 exposure during the study period. Interpretation Short-term exposure to wildfire-related PM 2·5 was associated with increased risk of mortality. Urgent action is needed to reduce health risks from the increasing wildfires. Funding Australian Research Council, Australian National Health & Medical Research Council.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".