MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280493402 · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(22)00090-0

Pollution and health: a progress update

2022· review· en· W4280493402 on OpenAlexaff
Richard Fuller, Philip J. Landrigan, Kalpana Balakrishnan, Glynda Bathan, Stephan Böse‐O’Reilly, Michael Bräuer, Jack Caravanos, Tom Chiles, Aaron Cohen, Lilian Corra, Maureen Cropper, Gregory L. Ferraro, J. L. Hanna, David Hanrahan, Howard Hu, David Hunter, Gloria Janata, Rachael Kupka, Bruce P. Lanphear, Maureen Y. Lichtveld, Keith Martin, Adetoun Mustapha, Ernesto Sánchez-Triana, Karti Sandilya, Laura Schaefli, Joseph R. Shaw, Jessica Seddon, William A. Suk, Martha María Téllez‐Rojo, Chonghuai Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Planetary Health · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK GovernmentHellenic Ministry of Environment and EnergyDirektion für Entwicklung und ZusammenarbeitInstitute for Health Metrics and EvaluationBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsPollutionEnvironmental healthAir pollutionEnvironmental protectionLife expectancyEnvironmental planningNatural resource economicsEconomic growthEnvironmental scienceMedicinePopulationEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Lancet Commission on pollution and health reported that pollution was responsible for 9 million premature deaths in 2015, making it the world's largest environmental risk factor for disease and premature death. We have now updated this estimate using data from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuriaes, and Risk Factors Study 2019. We find that pollution remains responsible for approximately 9 million deaths per year, corresponding to one in six deaths worldwide. Reductions have occurred in the number of deaths attributable to the types of pollution associated with extreme poverty. However, these reductions in deaths from household air pollution and water pollution are offset by increased deaths attributable to ambient air pollution and toxic chemical pollution (ie, lead). Deaths from these modern pollution risk factors, which are the unintended consequence of industrialisation and urbanisation, have risen by 7% since 2015 and by over 66% since 2000. Despite ongoing efforts by UN agencies, committed groups, committed individuals, and some national governments (mostly in high-income countries), little real progress against pollution can be identified overall, particularly in the low-income and middle-income countries, where pollution is most severe. Urgent attention is needed to control pollution and prevent pollution-related disease, with an emphasis on air pollution and lead poisoning, and a stronger focus on hazardous chemical pollution. Pollution, climate change, and biodiversity loss are closely linked. Successful control of these conjoined threats requires a globally supported, formal science-policy interface to inform intervention, influence research, and guide funding. Pollution has typically been viewed as a local issue to be addressed through subnational and national regulation or, occasionally, using regional policy in higher-income countries. Now, however, it is increasingly clear that pollution is a planetary threat, and that its drivers, its dispersion, and its effects on health transcend local boundaries and demand a global response. Global action on all major modern pollutants is needed. Global efforts can synergise with other global environmental policy programmes, especially as a large-scale, rapid transition away from all fossil fuels to clean, renewable energy is an effective strategy for preventing pollution while also slowing down climate change, and thus achieves a double benefit for planetary health.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0070.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.011

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 head0.237
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations2,006
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Planetary HealthSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207