Exposure to outdoor air pollution, wildfires, and cancer survival in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Climate change has led to an increase in wildfires, a major source of air pollution, which may be particularly harmful to individuals diagnosed with cancer. The objective of this study was to examine the relationships of air pollution and wildfires with mortality risk among cancer survivors. Methods Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) cancer registries provided information on 7,051,014 patients diagnosed with cancer from 2000 to 2021 in the United States. Cox regression was used to calculate adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations between exposures to particulate matter < 2.5 µm (PM 2.5 ), nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), ozone (O 3 ), and wildfires (estimated using high-resolution geospatial datasets) with all-cause and cause-specific mortality risk. Results There were 3,452,593 deaths, including 2,369,364 from cancer, 525,409 from cardiopulmonary, and 557,820 from other causes. Among cancer survivors, higher exposure to PM 2.5 and wildfires (but not NO 2 or O 3 ) were associated with increased risk for all-cause, cancer, and other mortality. The association between PM 2.5 and cancer mortality was stronger in counties more heavily impacted by wildfires (HR per 10 μg/m 3 in counties with ≥ median 0.39 wildfires per year: 1.17, 95 % CI 1.04–1.33) vs. no wildfires (HR 1.06, 95 % CI 0.97–1.15) (p interaction = 0.0064). Conclusions Among patients diagnosed with cancer, PM 2.5 air pollution, particularly in areas heavily impacted by wildfires, is associated with increased risk for mortality.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".