The Effect of Long-Term Particulate Matter Exposure on Respiratory Mortality: Cohort Study in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Particulate matter (PM), which affects respiratory health, has been well documented; however, substantial evidence from large cohorts is still limited, particularly in highly polluted countries and for PM1. Objective: Our objective was to examine the potential causal links between long-term exposure to PMs (PM2.5, PM10, and more importantly, PM1) and respiratory mortality. Methods: A total of 580,757 participants from the Guangzhou area, China, were recruited from 2009 to 2015 and followed up through 2020. The annual average concentrations of PMs at a 1-km spatial resolution around the residential addresses were estimated using validated spatiotemporal models. The marginal structural Cox model was used to estimate the associations of PM exposure with respiratory mortality, accounting for time-varying PM exposure. Results were stratified by demographics and lifestyle behaviors factors. Results: Among the participants, the mean age was 48.33 (SD 17.55) years, and 275,676 (47.47%) of them were men. During the follow-up period, 7260 deaths occurred due to respiratory diseases. The annual average concentrations of PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 showed a declining trend during the follow-up period. After adjusting for confounders, a 6.6% (95% CI 5.6%-7.6%), 4.2% (95% CI 3.6%-4.7%), and 4.0% (95% CI 3.6%-4.5%) increase in the risk of respiratory mortality was observed following each 1-μg/m3 increase in concentrations of PM1, PM2.5, and PM10, respectively. In addition, older participants, nonsmokers, participants with higher exercise frequency, and those exposed to a lower normalized difference vegetation index tended to be more susceptible to the effects of PMs. Furthermore, participants in the low-exposure group tended to be at a 7.6% and 2.7% greater risk of respiratory mortality following PM1 and PM10 exposure, respectively, compared to the entire cohort. Conclusions: This cohort study provides causal clues of the respiratory impact of long-term ambient PM exposure, indicating that PM reduction efforts may continuously benefit the population's respiratory health.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".