MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Genetic Susceptibility on PM2.5 Exposure and Respiratory and Neurobehavioural Health in Children: A Systematic Review

2025· review· en· W4410268440 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chang Chen, Rose He, Nayeon Lee, Stephanie E. Cleland, Stuart E. Turvey, James Dennis, Emily Brigham

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRespiratory systemEnvironmental healthIntensive care medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION Exposure to particulate matter less than 2.5 μm in diameter (PM2.5) has been associated with respiratory and neurobehavioural complications. Children are uniquely vulnerable compared to adults due to their growing lung and brain functions. With increased exposures to PM2.5 in North America due to wildfires and ongoing ambient PM2.5 contributions from traffic and industrial processes, there is an urgent need to identify specific populations that may be more susceptible to PM2.5 exposure. To address this need, we performed a systematic review of published research exploring the effect of genetic susceptibility on PM2.5 exposure and resulting respiratory and neurobehavioural health in children. METHODS Search of Embase, Medline, CINAHL, and Web of Science was conducted using search terms identified in our online protocol (PROSPERO ID558137). Title/abstract and full text screening were performed in duplicate, including studies with a study population <18 years of age, quantified PM2.5 exposure, genetic information available and applied to test for modification of PM2.5- respiratory or neurobehavioral health outcome relationships. Single-reviewer data abstraction has been completed to date, allowing a summary of sample sizes, age, region, and genetic markers demonstrating association with susceptibility to PM2.5 with respect to identified health outcomes. RESULTS Of the 852 articles reviewed, 17 studies met criteria for inclusion. Individual study sample sizes ranged from 86 to 5,746, for a total of >30,000 [CC1] participants represented. Studies were conducted in North America (USA, Canada), East Asia (Taiwan, China), and Europe (Netherlands, Czech Republic, Germany, Sweden, Belgium). Differences in GSS, XPC, EPHX1, CYP1A1, GSTP1, TLR2, TLR4, IL13, TNF, CC16 38A and NOS2 H1 & H3 genes were found to have statistically significant effects on the relationship between PM2.5 exposure and respiratory health outcomes including lung function (FEV1, FVC, mid-maximum expiratory flow), acute bronchitis, aggregate bronchitic symptoms, asthma, wheeze, and relevant markers of inflammation (urinary CC-16 and FeNO). Differences in APOE4 and OXTR genes, polygenic scores for Alzheimer's disease, and copy number variations (CNV) were found to have statistically significant effects on the relationship between PM2.5 exposure and neurologic health outcomes including brain volume, autism, and urinary acetic acid (an indicator for the risk for gut microbiota disorder that is related to the brain-gut-microbiota axis). CONCLUSION Included studies highlight specific genes and groups of genes that may influence a child's risk for respiratory or neurobehavioral disease or symptom development when exposed to PM2.5, supporting the potential for precision-approaches to identifying and protecting susceptible populations.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
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: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine→Same topicAir Quality and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→