Cardiovascular Health Peaks and Meteorological Conditions: A Quantile Regression Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are influenced by meteorological conditions, such as temperature or snowfall. Relationships between cardiovascular health and meteorological conditions are usually studied based on specific meteorological events or means. However, those studies bring little to no insight into health peaks and unusual events far from the mean, such as a day with an unusually high number of hospitalizations. Health peaks represent a heavy burden for the public health system; they are, however, usually studied specifically when they occur (e.g., the European 2003 heatwave). Specific analyses are needed, using appropriate statistical tools. Quantile regression can provide such analysis by focusing not only on the conditional median, but on different conditional quantiles of the dependent variable. In particular, high quantiles of a health issue can be treated as health peaks. In this study, quantile regression is used to model the relationships between conditional quantiles of cardiovascular variables and meteorological variables in Montreal (Canada), focusing on health peaks. Results show that meteorological impacts are not constant throughout the conditional quantiles. They are stronger in health peaks compared to quantiles around the median. Results also show that temperature is the main significant variable. This study highlights the fact that classical statistical methods are not appropriate when health peaks are of interest. Quantile regression allows for more precise estimations for health peaks, which could lead to refined public health warnings.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".