MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Particulate matter air pollution and COVID-19 infection, severity, and mortality: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2023· review· en· W4362699943 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicola Sheppard, Matthew Carroll, Caroline X. Gao, Tyler Lane

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Science of The Total Environment · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFunnel plotMeta-analysisPublication biasMedicineConfoundingOdds ratioCohort studySocioeconomic statusMEDLINEEnvironmental healthOddsPopulationInternal medicineLogistic regressionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ecological evidence links ambient particulate matter ≤2.5 mm (PM2.5) and the rate of COVID-19 infections, severity, and deaths. However, such studies are unable to account for individual-level differences in major confounders like socioeconomic status and often rely on imprecise measures of PM2.5. We conducted a systematic review of case-control and cohort studies, which rely on individual-level data, searching Medline, Embase, and the WHO COVID-19 database up to 30 June 2022. Study quality was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Results were pooled with a random effects meta-analysis, with Egger's regression, funnel plots, and leave-one-out/trim-and-fill sensitivity analyses to account for publication bias. N = 18 studies met inclusion criteria. A 10 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 was associated with 66 % (95 % CI: 1.31–2.11) greater odds of COVID-19 infection (N = 7) and 127 % (95 % CI: 1.41–3.66) odds of severe illness (hospitalisation, ICU admission, or requiring respiratory support) (N = 6). Pooled mortality results (N = 5) indicated increased deaths due to PM2.5 but were non-significant (OR 1.40; 0.94 to 2.10). Most studies were rated “good” quality (14/18 studies), though there were numerous methodological issues; few used individual-level data to adjust for socioeconomic status (4/18 studies), instead using area-based indicators (11/18 studies) or no such adjustments (3/18 studies). Most severity (9/10 studies) and mortality studies (5/6 studies) were based on people already diagnosed COVID-19, potentially introducing collider bias. There was evidence of publication bias in studies of infection (p = 0.012) but not severity (p = 0.132) or mortality (p = 0.100). While methodological limits and evidence of bias require cautious interpretation of the findings, we found compelling evidence that PM2.5 increases the risk of COVID-19 infection and severe disease, and weaker evidence of an increase in mortality risk.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0200.039
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
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 head0.135
GPT teacher head0.374
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations48
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Science of The Total EnvironmentSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207