MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Table 1_Air pollution, emerging chemical exposures, and systemic lupus erythematosus: a meta-epidemiology study.docx

2025· dataset· W7110863974 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typedataset
Language
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncidence (geometry)Air pollutantsObservational studyFunnel plotSystemic lupus erythematosusStatistical analysisMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives This meta-analysis evaluated the direction and strength of associations between air pollution, emerging chemical pollutants, and systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) incidence, clarifying distinct relationships by pollutant type. Method By utilizing medical subject headings and keywords from the PubMed and EMBASE databases, a thorough search was conducted for published observational studies linking air pollution and SLE from inception until August 2024. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) was utilized to evaluate the quality of the studies. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA software (version 14.0), with the assessment of publication bias conducted through funnel plots and Egger’s test. Result This meta-analysis encompassed 8 studies published between 2018 and 2024, involving a total of 1,390,348 individuals. We assessed exposure to standard air pollutants and emerging chemical pollutants, specifically including perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs, a type of persistent chemical widely used in nonstick cookware and waterproof products) and bisphenol compounds (BPs, a synthetic chemical primarily used in plastic products and resins). These eight studies identified significant positive associations between SLE incidence and exposure to PM<sub>2.5</sub> [OR = 1.16, 95% CI (1.02-1.32), I<sup>2</sup> = 62.4%, p=0.031], NO<sub>2</sub> [OR = 1.24, 95% CI (1.11-1.38), I² = 0.0%, P = 0.603], and PFASs [OR = 2.47, 95% CI (1.54-2.57)], while O<sub>3</sub> exhibited a negative association [OR = 0.83, 95% CI (0.70-0.98), I² = 19.3%, P = 0.290]. No significant links were found for PM<sub>10</sub> [OR = 1.11, 95% CI (0.90–1.36), I² = 66.3%, P = 0.031], SO<sub>2</sub> [OR = 0.99, 95% CI (0.66-1.48), I² = 79.0%, P = 0.001], and BPs [OR = 1.26, 95% CI (0.80-1.99)]. Sensitivity analyses supported robustness without evidence of publication bias. Conclusion The results of this meta-analysis suggest that air pollutants PM<sub>2.5</sub> and NO<sub>2</sub> may be potential environmental risk factors for SLE, while the negative correlation with O<sub>3</sub> requires further research to validate its potential mechanisms. It is worth noting that although a study on PFASs showed a strong association with SLE, this finding requires further evidence due to the limited number of relevant studies currently available. These findings imply that improving air quality and strengthening regulation of emerging pollutants may reduce the disease burden of SLE. Based on the current strength of evidence, public health policies should prioritize reducing population exposure levels to PM<sub>2.5</sub> and NO<sub>2</sub>, which may help reduce the potential risk of SLE onset. Concurrently, larger-scale studies should be conducted to confirm the association between other environmental pollutants such as PFASs and SLE, providing more comprehensive scientific evidence for the development of targeted environmental health policies. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/, PROSPERO (CRD42024581931).

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmaMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Observationalmedium
gptInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Domain: not available · Genre: Dataset
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablehigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.354
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.3700.016

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

Meta-epidemiology (broad)Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designObservational · Not applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareCategoryMeta-epidemiology (broad)French-language works237,207