MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415655816 · doi:10.1177/17103568251385571

The Toxin of the Year: Airborne PM <sub>2.5</sub>

2025· article· en· W4415655816 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Katharina M. Rolfes, Nidhi Singh, Thomas Haarmann‐Stemmann, Jean Krutmann

Bibliographic record

VenueDermatitis · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExacerbationAtopic dermatitisInflammatory responseSkin barrierSkin AgingSkin lesion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Particulate matter (PM) with a diameter of 2.5 µm or smaller (PM 2.5 ) has emerged as a critical environmental toxin affecting skin health. In light of its widespread and often underestimated impact, we designated PM 2.5 as the “toxin of the year.” Although PM 2.5 primarily affects the respiratory system, growing evidence indicates that it also plays a significant role in cutaneous health. Exposure to PM 2.5 can lead to oxidative stress, inflammation, and impairment of the skin barrier, particularly in individuals with preexisting skin conditions. An increasing number of studies highlight an association between PM 2.5 exposure and the prevalence and exacerbation of inflammatory skin diseases such as atopic dermatitis and psoriasis. This review therefore focuses on the fundamental mechanisms, including key molecular pathways, by which PM 2.5 contributes to skin damage, with an emphasis on its role in the onset and progression of inflammatory skin diseases, as evidenced by population-based studies. A deeper understanding of these processes is crucial for guiding the development of targeted prevention and therapeutic strategies in response to raising environmental pollution. Giving the growing body of evidence, this review aims to consolidate current knowledge and highlight critical gaps in our understanding of PM 2.5 impact on inflammatory skin diseases.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDermatitisSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207