Association between fire smoke fine particulate matter and asthma-related outcomes: Systematic review and meat-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Asthma-related outcomes are regularly used by studies to investigate the association between human exposure to landscape fire smoke and health. Robust summary effect estimates are required to inform health protection policy for fire smoke exposure. Objective To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the association between short-term exposure to landscape fire smoke (LFS) fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and asthma-related outcomes. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines. Four databases (PubMed, Medline, EMBASE and Scopus) and reference lists of recent fire smoke and health reviews were searched. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to evaluate the quality of case-crossover studies, and a previously validated quality assessment framework was used for observational studies lacking control groups. Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's Test. The trim and fill method was used when there was evidence of publication bias. Sensitivity and influence analyses were conducted on all endpoints to test the robustness of estimates. Summary estimates were obtained for hospitalisations and emergency department (ED) visits. A descriptive analysis was conducted for physician visits, medication use, and salbutamol dispensations. Results From an initial 181 articles (after duplicate removal), 20 studies were included for quantitative assessment and descriptive synthesis. LFS PM2.5 levels were positively associated with asthma hospitalisations (RR = 1.06, 95% CI: 1.02–1.09) and emergency department visits (RR = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04–1.09). Subgroup analyses found that females were more susceptible than males for ED visits, and that there was an increasing association by age groups for hospital admissions and ED visits. High heterogeneity between studies was observed, but results were robust to sensitivity analysis. Conclusions Females and all adults aged over 65 years appear to be the population groups most sensitive to asthma-related outcomes when exposed to LFS PM2.5. Overall, results were higher than those obtained for a typical PM2.5 mixture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.025 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".