MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409269338 · doi:10.1038/s41893-025-01533-9

Respiratory risks from wildfire-specific PM2.5 across multiple countries and territories

2025· article· en· W4409269338 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yiwen Zhang, Rongbin Xu, Wenzhong Huang, Tingting Ye, Pei Yu, Wenhua Yu, Yao Wu, Yanming Liu, Zhengyu Yang, Bo Wen, Ke Ju, Jiangning Song, Michael J. Abramson, Amanda Johnson, Anthony Capon, Bin Jalaludin, Donna Green, Eric Lavigne, Fay H. Johnston, Geoffrey Morgan, Luke D. Knibbs, Ying Zhang, Guy B. Marks, Jane Heyworth, Julie M. Arblaster, Yue Leon Guo, Lídia Morawska, Micheline de Sousa Zanotti Stagliorio Coêlho, Paulo Hilário Nascimento Saldiva, Patricia Matus Correa, Peng Bi, Simon Hales, Wenbiao Hu, Dung Phung, Yuming Guo, Shanshan Li

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Sustainability · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth Canada
FundersNational Health and Medical Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilChina Scholarship CouncilMonash University
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGeographyEnvironmental healthEnvironmental protectionMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Under a warming climate, wildfires are becoming more frequent and severe. Multicountry studies evaluating associations between wildfire fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) and respiratory hospitalizations are lacking. Here we evaluate the short-term effects of wildfire-specific PM 2.5 on respiratory hospitalizations from 1,052 communities across Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, Vietnam, Thailand and Taiwan, during 2000–2019. A 1 µg m −3 increase in wildfire-specific PM 2.5 was associated with increased hospitalization risks for all-cause respiratory, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, acute upper respiratory infection, influenza and pneumonia by 0.36%, 0.48%, 0.38%, 0.42%, 0.79% and 0.36%, respectively. Higher risks were observed among populations ≤19 or ≥60 years old, from low-income or high non-wildfire PM 2.5 communities, and residing in Brazil, Thailand, Taiwan and Vietnam. Australia and New Zealand exhibited a greater hospitalization risk for asthma associated with wildfire-specific PM 2.5 . Compared with non-wildfire PM 2.5 , wildfire-specific PM 2.5 posed greater hospitalization risks for all respiratory diseases and a greater burden of asthma. Wildfire-specific PM 2.5 contributed to 42.4% of PM 2.5 -linked respiratory hospitalizations, dominating in Thailand. Overall, the substantial contribution of wildfire-specific PM 2.5 to respiratory hospitalizations demands continued mitigation and adaptation efforts across most countries. Intervention should be prioritized for influenza, children, adolescents, the elderly and populations in low-income or high-polluted communities.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations31
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature SustainabilitySame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207