A systematic review with a Burden of Proof meta-analysis of health effects of long-term ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure on dementia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous studies have indicated increased dementia risk associated with fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) exposure; however, the findings are inconsistent. In this systematic review, we assessed the association between long-term PM 2.5 exposure and dementia outcomes using the Burden of Proof meta-analytic framework, which relaxes log-linear assumptions to better characterize relative risk functions and quantify unexplained between-study heterogeneity (PROSPERO, ID CRD42023421869). Here we report a meta-analysis of 28 longitudinal cohort studies published up to June 2023 that investigated long-term PM 2.5 exposure and dementia outcomes. We derived risk–outcome scores (ROSs), highly conservative measures of effect size and evidence strength, mapped onto a 1–5-star rating from ‘weak and/or inconsistent evidence’ to ‘very strong and/or consistent evidence’. We identified a significant nonlinear relationship between PM 2.5 exposure and dementia, with a minimum 14% increased risk averaged across PM 2.5 levels between 4.5 and 26.9 µg m −3 (the 15th to 85th percentile exposure range across included studies), relative to a reference of 2.0 µg m −3 ( n = 49, ROS = 0.13, two stars). We found a significant association of PM 2.5 with Alzheimer’s disease ( n = 12, ROS = 0.32, three stars) but not with vascular dementia. Our findings highlight the potential impact of air pollution on brain aging.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it