MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4324311221 · doi:10.1289/ehp11095

Using Parametric g-Computation to Estimate the Effect of Long-Term Exposure to Air Pollution on Mortality Risk and Simulate the Benefits of Hypothetical Policies: The Canadian Community Health Survey Cohort (2005 to 2015)

2023· article· en· W4324311221 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chen Chen, Hong Chen, Aaron van Donkelaar, Richard T. Burnett, Randall V. Martin, Li Chen, Michael Tjepkema, Megan Kirby-McGregor, Yi Li, Jay S. Kaufman, Tarik Benmarhnia

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Perspectives · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesStatistics CanadaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoHealth Canada
FundersHealth CanadaClimateWorks Foundation
KeywordsEnvironmental healthConfoundingMedicineCohortPsychological interventionMarginal structural modelExposure assessmentDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Numerous epidemiological studies have documented the adverse health impact of long-term exposure to fine particulate matter [particulate matter ≤2.5μm in aerodynamic diameter (PM2.5)] on mortality even at relatively low levels. However, methodological challenges remain to consider potential regulatory intervention’s complexity and provide actionable evidence on the predicted benefits of interventions. We propose the parametric g-computation as an alternative analytical approach to such challenges. Method: We applied the parametric g-computation to estimate the cumulative risks of nonaccidental death under different hypothetical intervention strategies targeting long-term exposure to PM2.5 in the Canadian Community Health Survey cohort from 2005 to 2015. On both relative and absolute scales, we explored the benefits of hypothetical intervention strategies compared with the natural course that a) set the simulated exposure value at each follow-up year to a threshold value if exposure was above the threshold (8.8 μg/m3, 7.04 μg/m3, 5 μg/m3, and 4 μg/m3), and b) reduced the simulated exposure value by a percentage (5% and 10%) at each follow-up year. We used the 3-y average PM2.5 concentration with 1-y lag at the postal code of respondents’ annual mailing addresses as their long-term exposure to PM2.5. We considered baseline and time-varying confounders, including demographics, behavior characteristics, income level, and neighborhood socioeconomic status. We also included the R syntax for reproducibility and replication. Results: All hypothetical intervention strategies explored led to lower 11-y cumulative mortality risks than the estimated value under the natural course without intervention, with the smallest reduction of 0.20 per 1,000 participants (95% CI: 0.06, 0.34) under the threshold of 8.8 μg/m3, and the largest reduction of 3.40 per 1,000 participants (95% CI: −0.23, 7.03) under the relative reduction of 10% per interval. The reductions in cumulative risk, or numbers of deaths that would have been prevented if the intervention was employed instead of maintaining the status quo, increased over time but flattened toward the end of the follow-up period. Estimates among those ≥65 years of age were greater with a similar pattern. Our estimates were robust to different model specifications. Discussion: We found evidence that any intervention further reducing the long-term exposure to PM2.5 would reduce the cumulative mortality risk, with greater benefits in the older population, even in a population already exposed to low levels of ambient PM2.5. The parametric g-computation used in this study provides flexibilities in simulating real-world interventions, accommodates time-varying exposure and confounders, and estimates adjusted survival curves with clearer interpretation and more information than a single hazard ratio, making it a valuable analytical alternative in air pollution epidemiological research. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP11095

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)0.063
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.641
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.063
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations23
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health PerspectivesSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207