Circulatory health risks from additive multi-pollutant models: short-term exposure to three common air pollutants in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Numerous studies have reported adverse health effects of ambient air pollution on circulatory health outcomes mainly based on single-pollutant models. However, limited studies have focused on adjusted effect of multi-pollutant exposures on public health. This study aimed to examine short-term effects of three common air pollutants—ground-level ozone (ozone), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5)—through multi-pollutant models for mixed effect of adjustment. Daily data (circulatory hospitalization and mortality) and hourly data (air pollutants and temperature) were collected for 24 Canadian cities for 2001–2012. We applied generalized additive over-dispersion Poisson regression models with 1, 2, or 3 pollutants for city-specific risks, and Bayesian hierarchical models for national risks. This study found little mixed effect of adjustment through multi-pollutant models (ozone and/or NO2 and/or PM2.5) for circulatory hospitalization or mortality in Canada for 2001–2012, indicating that the 1-pollutant model did not result in considerable under- or over-estimates. It seemed weak-to-moderate correlations among air pollutants did not change the significant effect of one air pollutant after accounting for others. Inconsistent findings between other previous studies and this study indicate the need of comparable study design for multi-pollutant effect analysis.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".