MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417229683 · doi:10.1161/jaha.125.043306

Exposure–Response to High PM <sub>2.5</sub> Levels for Cardiovascular Events in High‐Risk Older Adults in Taiwan

2025· article· en· W4417229683 on OpenAlexaff
S.H. Huang, Chien‐Chou Su, Chuan‐Yao Lin, Rachel C. Nethery, Kevin Josey, Benjamin Bates, David A. Robinson, Poonam Gandhi, Melanie Rua, Ashwaghosha Parthasarathi, Soko Setoguchi, Yea‐Huei Kao Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Heart Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Aging
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Heart failureCardiovascular healthEpidemiologyDiseaseMEDLINEOlder people

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Limited studies using individual‐level health outcome data exist from countries with a wider range of particulate matter with a diameter of <2.5 μm (PM 2.5 ) levels to illustrate the shape of the exposure–response curve across a wide PM 2.5 range, including >15 μg/m 3 PM 2.5 concentrations. Taiwan reduced PM 2.5 over time with its policies, which provide opportunities to illustrate the dose–response curves and how reductions of PM 2.5 over time correlated with cardiovascular events incidence in a nationwide sample. Methods Using data from the 2009 to 2019 Taiwan National Health Insurance Database linked to nationwide PM 2.5 data, we examined the magnitude of the exposure–response curve between seasonal average PM 2.5 level and cardiovascular events‐related hospitalizations among older adults at high risk for cardiovascular events. We used history‐adjusted marginal structural models including potential confounding by individual demographic factors, baseline comorbidities, and health service measures. Results We included 373 402 older adults with high‐risk conditions in Taiwan. Using the PM 2.5 concentration <15 μg/m 3 (Taiwan regulatory standard) as a reference, the seasonal average PM 2.5 concentrations (15–23.5 and >23.5 μg/m 3 ) were associated with hazard ratio of 1.13 (95% CI, 1.09–1.18) and 1.19 (95% CI, 1.14–1.24), 1.07 (95% CI, 1.03–1.11) and 1.14 (95% CI, 1.10–1.18), 1.22 (95% CI, 1.08–1.38) and 1.31 (95% CI, 1.16–1.48), 1.04 (95% CI, 0.98–1.10) and 1.10 (95% CI, 1.04–1.16), respectively, for heart failure, ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack, deep vein thrombosis, and myocardial infarction/acute coronary syndrome. Conclusions Further lowering PM 2.5 levels beyond current regulatory standards (15 μg/m 3 ) may effectively reduce the incidence of heart failure, deep vein thrombosis, and ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack, and can lead to tangible health benefits in the high‐risk older population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Heart Association→Same topicAir Quality and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→