The influence of outdoor PM2.5 concentration at workplace on nonaccidental mortality estimates in a Canadian census-based cohort
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Associations between mortality and exposure to ambient air pollution are usually explored using concentrations of residential outdoor fine particulate matter (PM2.5) to estimate individual exposure. Such studies all have an important limitation in that they do not capture data on individual mobility throughout the day to areas where concentrations may be substantially different, leading to possible exposure misclassification. We examine the possible role of outdoor PM2.5 concentrations at work for a large population-based mortality cohort. Methods: Using the 2001 Canadian Census Health and Environment Cohort (CanCHEC), we created a time-weighted average that incorporates employment hours worked in the past week and outdoor PM2.5 concentration at work and home. We used a Cox proportional hazard model with a 15-year follow-up (2001 to 2016) to explore whether inclusion of workplace estimates had an impact on hazard ratios for mortality for this cohort. Results: Hazard ratios relying on outdoor PM2.5 concentration at home were not significantly different from those using a time-weighted estimate, for the full cohort, nor for those who commute to a regular workplace. When exploring cohort subgroups according to neighborhood type and commute distance, there was a notable but insignificant change in risk of nonaccidental death for those living in car-oriented neighborhoods, and with commutes greater than 10 km. Conclusions: Risk analyses performed with large cohorts in low-pollution environments do not seem to be biased if relying solely on outdoor PM2.5 concentrations at home to estimate exposure.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".