MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4220821208 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0264803

Potential health benefits of eliminating traffic emissions in urban areas

2022· review· en· W4220821208 on OpenAlexaff
Shahram Heydari, Masoud Asgharian, Frank J. Kelly, Rahul Goel

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAir pollutionPollutionEnvironmental healthApportionmentBusinessMedicineChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Traffic is one of the major contributors to PM2.5 in cities worldwide. Quantifying the role of traffic is an important step towards understanding the impact of transport policies on the possibilities to achieve cleaner air and accompanying health benefits. With the aim of estimating potential health benefits of eliminating traffic emissions, we carried out a meta-analysis using the World Health Organisation (WHO) database of source apportionment studies of PM2.5 concentrations. Specifically, we used a Bayesian meta-regression approach, modelling both overall and traffic-related (tailpipe and non-tailpipe) concentrations simultaneously. We obtained the distributions of expected PM2.5 concentrations (posterior densities) of different types for 117 cities worldwide. Using the non-linear Integrated Exposure Response (IER) function of PM2.5, we estimated percent reduction in different disease endpoints for a scenario with complete removal of traffic emissions. We found that eliminating traffic emissions results in achieving the WHO-recommended concentration of PM2.5 only for a handful of cities that already have low concentrations of pollution. The percentage reduction in premature mortality due to cardiovascular and respiratory diseases increases up to a point (30-40 ug/m3), and above this concentration, it flattens off. For diabetes-related mortality, the percentage reduction in mortality decreases with increasing concentrations-a trend that is opposite to other outcomes. For cities with high concentrations of pollution, the results highlight the need for multi-sectoral strategies to reduce pollution. The IER functions of PM2.5 result in diminishing returns of health benefits at high concentrations, and in case of diabetes, there are even negative returns. The results show the significant effect of the shape of IER functions on health benefits. Overall, despite the diminishing results, a significant burden of deaths can be prevented by policies that aim to reduce traffic emissions even at high concentrations of pollution.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.016
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.181
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicAir Quality and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→