Environmental and Occupational Short-Term Exposure to Airborne Particles and FEV1 and FVC in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: No study has compared the respiratory effects of environmental and occupational particulate exposure in healthy adults. Methods: We estimated, by a systematic review and meta-analysis, the associations between short term exposures to fine particles (PM2.5 and PM4) and certain parameters of lung function (FEV1 and FVC) in healthy adults. Results: In total, 33 and 14 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis and meta-analyses, respectively. In environmental studies, a 10 µg/m3 increase in PM2.5 was associated with an FEV1 reduction of 7.63 mL (95% CI: −10.62 to −4.63 mL). In occupational studies, an increase of 10 µg/m3 in PM4 was associated with an FEV1 reduction of 0.87 mL (95% CI: −1.36 to −0.37 mL). Similar results were observed with FVC. Conclusions: Both occupational and environmental short-term exposures to fine particles are associated with reductions in FEV1 and FVC in healthy adults.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".