MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Global Burden of Disease from Environmental Factors

2024· review· en· W4405486281 on OpenAlexaff
Sierra Clark, Susan C. Anenberg, Michael Bräuer

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Public Health · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate Change and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute of Environmental Health SciencesInstitute for Health Metrics and Evaluation
KeywordsEnvironmental healthBurden of diseaseDisease burdenAir pollutionDisability-adjusted life yearPublic healthEnvironmental pollutionEnvironmental protectionDiseaseMedicineEnvironmental sciencePopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimation of the disease burden attributable to environmental factors is a powerful tool for prioritizing environmental and pollution management and public health actions around the world. The World Health Organization (WHO) began estimating the environmental disease burden in 2000, which has formed the basis for the modern estimation approach conducted in the Global Burden of Disease, Injuries, and Risk Factor (GBD) study. In 2021, environmental and occupational risk factors in the GBD were responsible for 18.9% (12.8 million) of global deaths and 14.4% of all disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), led by ambient PM 2.5 air pollution (4.2% DALYs, 4.7 million deaths) and household air pollution from the use of solid fuels for cooking (3.9% DALYs, 3.1 million deaths). Climate change exacerbates many environmental hazards, leading to increased disease burdens from heat, air pollution, vector-borne diseases, storms, and flooding. Other environmental risk factors not included in the GBD, such as poor indoor air quality, various chemical exposures, and environmental noise pollution, also significantly contribute to disease burden in many countries, though more efforts are needed to generate and integrate data resources for inclusion in global estimations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.004

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations43
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Public HealthSame topicClimate Change and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207