MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307432580 · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000201419

Air Pollution and Incidence of Dementia

2022· review· en· W4307432580 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Abolhasani, Vladimir Hachinski, Nargess Ghazaleh, Mahmoud Reza Azarpazhooh, Naghmeh Mokhber, Janet Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDementiaIncidence (geometry)MedicineAir pollutionEnvironmental healthDiseaseInternal medicineChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and Objectives Studies of association between air pollution and incidence of dementia have shown discrepant results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between air pollution and dementia. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched and updated in August 2021. Population-based cohort studies that reported on hazard ratio (HR) of dementia in association with exposure to fine particulate matter (PM2·5), nitrogen oxides (NOX), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), or ozone (O3) in those aged >40 years were included. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators. The main outcome was the pooled HR for dementia per increment of pollutant, calculated using a random-effects model. Results were reported in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020219036). Results A total of 20 studies were included in the systematic review, and 17 provided data for the meta-analysis. The total included population was 91,391,296, with 5,521,111 (6%) being diagnosed with dementia. A total of 12, 5, 6, and 4 studies were included in the meta-analyses of PM2·5, NOX, NO2, and O3, respectively. The risk of dementia increased by 3% per 1 μg/m3 increment in PM2·5 (HR, 1.03; 95% CI [1.02–1.05]; I2 = 100%). The association between dementia per 10 μg/m3 increment in NOX (HR, 1.05; 95% CI [0.99–1.13]; I2 = 61%), NO2 (HR, 1.03; 95% CI [1.00–1.07]; I2 = 94%), and O3 levels (HR, 1.01; 95% CI [0.91–1.11]; I2 = 82%) was less clear, although a significant association could not be ruled out, and there was high heterogeneity across studies. Discussion Existing evidence suggests a significant association between exposure to PM2·5 and incidence of dementia and nonsignificant association between dementia and NOX, NO2, and O3 exposure. However, results should be interpreted in light of the small number of studies and high heterogeneity of effects across studies.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.017
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations83
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207