The effect of the urban exposome on COVID-19 health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The global severity of SARS-CoV-2 illness has been associated with various urban characteristics, including exposure to ambient air pollutants. This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to synthesize findings from ecological and non-ecological studies to investigate the impact of multiple urban-related features on a variety of COVID-19 health outcomes. On December 5, 2022, PubMed was searched to identify all types of observational studies that examined one or more urban exposome characteristics in relation to various COVID-19 health outcomes such as infection severity, the need for hospitalization, ICU admission, COVID pneumonia, and mortality. A total of 38 non-ecological and 241 ecological studies were included in this review. Non-ecological studies highlighted the significant effects of population density, urbanization, and exposure to ambient air pollutants, particularly PM2.5. The meta-analyses revealed that a 1 μg/m3 increase in PM2.5 was associated with a higher likelihood of COVID-19 hospitalization (pooled OR 1.08 (95% CI:1.02–1.14)) and death (pooled OR 1.06 (95% CI:1.03–1.09)). Ecological studies, in addition to confirming the findings of non-ecological studies, also indicated that higher exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), sulphur dioxide (SO2), and carbon monoxide (CO), as well as lower ambient temperature, humidity, ultraviolet (UV) radiation, and less green and blue space exposure, were associated with increased COVID-19 morbidity and mortality. This systematic review has identified several key vulnerability features related to urban areas in the context of the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The findings underscore the importance of improving policies related to urban exposures and implementing measures to protect individuals from these harmful environmental stressors.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".