Impact of lowering fine particulate matter from major emission sources on mortality in Canada: A nationwide causal analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emissions of fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) from human activities have been linked to substantial disease burdens, but evidence regarding how reducing PM 2.5 at its sources would improve public health is sparse. We followed a population-based cohort of 2.7 million adults across Canada from 2007 through 2016. For each participant, we estimated annual mean concentrations of PM 2.5 and the fractional contributions to PM 2.5 from the five leading anthropogenic sources at their residential address using satellite observations in combination with a global atmospheric chemistry transport model. For each source, we estimated the causal effects of six hypothetical interventions on 10-y nonaccidental mortality risk using the parametric g-formula, a structural causal model. We conducted stratified analyses by age, sex, and income. This cohort would have experienced tangible health gains had contributions to PM 2.5 from any of the five sources been reduced. Compared with no intervention, a 10% annual reduction in PM 2.5 contributions from transportation and power generation, Canada’s largest and fifth-largest anthropogenic sources, would have prevented approximately 175 (95%CI: 123–226) and 90 (95%CI: 63–117) deaths per million by 2016, respectively. A more intensive 50% reduction per year in PM 2.5 contributions from the two sources would have averted 360 and 185 deaths per million, respectively, by 2016. The potential health benefits were greater among men, older adults, and low-income earners. In Canada, where PM 2.5 levels are among the lowest worldwide, reducing PM 2.5 contributions from anthropogenic sources by as little as 10% annually would yield meaningful health gains.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".