Effects of ambient air pollution on obesity and ectopic fat deposition: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Globally, the prevalence of obesity tripled from 1975 to 2016. There is evidence that air pollution may contribute to the obesity epidemic through an increase in oxidative stress and inflammation of adipose tissue. However, the impact of air pollution on body weight at a population level remains inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis will estimate the association of ambient air pollution with obesity, distribution of ectopic adipose tissue, and the incidence and prevalence of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease among adults. Methods and analysis The study will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines for conduct and reporting. The search will include the following databases: Ovid Medline, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science and Latin America and the Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences, and will be supplemented by a grey literature search. Each article will be independently screened by two reviewers, and relevant data will be extracted independently and in duplicate. Study-specific estimates of associations and their 95% Confidence Intervals will be pooled using a DerSimonian and Laird random-effects model, implemented using the RevMan software. The I2 statistic will be used to assess interstudy heterogeneity. The confidence in the body of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Ethics and dissemination As per institutional policy, ethical approval is not required for secondary data analysis. In addition to being published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences, the results of the meta-analysis will be shared with key stakeholders, health policymakers and healthcare professionals. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023423955.
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 | 0.094 | 0.123 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.008 |
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".