Relationships between fixed-site ambient measurements of nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter and personal exposures in Grand Paris, France: the MobiliSense study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Past epidemiological studies, using fixed-site outdoor air pollution measurements as a proxy for participants’ exposure, might have suffered from exposure misclassification. In the MobiliSense study, personal exposures to ozone (O 3 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), and particles with aerodynamic diameters below 2.5 μm (PM 2.5 ) were monitored with a personal air quality monitor. All the spatial location points collected with a personal GPS receiver and mobility survey were used to retrieve background hourly concentrations of air pollutants from the nearest Airparif monitoring station. We modeled 851,343 min-level observations from 246 participants. Visited places including the residence contributed the majority of the minute-level observations, 93.0%, followed by active transport (3.4%), and the rest were from on-road and rail transport, 2.4% and 1.1%, respectively. Comparison of personal exposures and station-measured concentrations for each individual indicated low Spearman correlations for NO 2 (median across participants: 0.23), O 3 (median: 0.21), and PM 2.5 (median: 0.27), with varying levels of correlation by microenvironments (ranging from 0.06 to 0.35 according to the microenvironment). Results from mixed-effect models indicated that personal exposure was very weakly explained by station-measured concentrations (R 2 < 0.07) for all air pollutants. The R 2 for only a few models was higher than 0.15, namely for O 3 in the active transport microenvironment (R 2 : 0.25) and for PM 2.5 in active transport (R 2 : 0.16) and in the separated rail transport microenvironment (R 2 : 0.20). Model fit slightly increased with decreasing distance between participants’ location and the nearest monitoring station. Our results demonstrated a relatively low correlation between personal exposure and station-measured air pollutants, confirming that station-measured concentrations as proxies of personal exposures can lead to exposure misclassification. However, distance and the type of microenvironment are shown to affect the extent of misclassification.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".