2
   

Does "at risk" refer to "at risk of exposure to air pollution" or "at risk of natural death"?

 
 
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 08:42 pm

Context:

Effects of long-term exposure to air pollution on natural-cause mortality: an analysis of 22 European cohorts within the multicentre ESCAPE project
Summary
Background
Few studies on long-term exposure to air pollution and mortality have been reported from Europe. Within the multicentre European Study of Cohorts for Air Pollution Effects (ESCAPE), we aimed to investigate the association between natural-cause mortality and long-term exposure to several air pollutants.
Methods
We used data from 22 European cohort studies, which created a total study population of 367 251 participants. All cohorts were general population samples, although some were restricted to one sex only. With a strictly standardised protocol, we assessed residential exposure to air pollutants as annual average concentrations of particulate matter (PM) with diameters of less than 2·5 μm (PM2·5), less than 10 μm (PM10), and between 10 μm and 2·5 μm (PMcoarse), PM2.5 absorbance, and annual average concentrations of nitrogen oxides (NO2 and NOx), with land use regression models. We also investigated two traffic intensity variables—traffic intensity on the nearest road (vehicles per day) and total traffic load on all major roads within a 100 m buffer. We did cohort-specific statistical analyses using confounder models with increasing adjustment for confounder variables, and Cox proportional hazards models with a common protocol. We obtained pooled effect estimates through a random-effects meta-analysis.
Findings
The total study population consisted of 367 251 participants who contributed 5 118 039 person-years at risk (average follow-up 13·9 years), of whom 29 076 died from a natural cause during follow-up. A significantly increased hazard ratio (HR) for PM2·5 of 1·07 (95% CI 1·02—1·13) per 5 μg/m3 was recorded. No heterogeneity was noted between individual cohort effect estimates (I2 p value=0·95). HRs for PM2·5 remained significantly raised even when we included only participants exposed to pollutant concentrations lower than the European annual mean limit value of 25 μg/m3 (HR 1·06, 95% CI 1·00—1·12) or below 20 μg/m3 (1·07, 1·01—1·13).
Interpretation
Long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution was associated with natural-cause mortality, even within concentration ranges well below the present European annual mean limit value.
Funding
European Community's Seventh Framework Program (FP7/2007—2011).

MOre:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(13)62158-3/abstract
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Question • Score: 2 • Views: 470 • Replies: 6
No top replies

 
View best answer, chosen by oristarA
BillRM
  Selected Answer
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 09:25 pm
@oristarA,
The at risk in this meaning is the population group that had been or are being exposure to large amounts of air pollution.

This group will be compare to a non at risk group from air pollution in order to study the harm being done to the at risk group compare to a non at risk population.

So neither meaning in your title apply as it is being used as a label for a population group.

oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 09:38 pm
@BillRM,
Cool.

Would anyone like to explain the meaning of "of 1·07" in that context? What does 1.07 refer to?

Quote:
A significantly increased hazard ratio (HR) for PM2·5 of 1·07 (95% CI 1·02—1·13) per 5 μg/m3 was recorded.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 10:00 pm
@oristarA,
Quote:
Would anyone like to explain the meaning of "of 1·07" in that context? What does 1.07 refer to?


PM stand for Particulate Matter and 1.07 would be the avg size of the particulates in micrometers units.

Quote:


http://www.epa.gov/pm/

"Particulate matter," also known as particle pollution or PM, is a complex mixture of extremely small particles and liquid droplets. Particle pollution is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, and soil or dust particles.

The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. EPA is concerned about particles that are 10 micrometers in diameter or smaller because those are the particles that generally pass through the throat and nose and enter the lungs. Once inhaled, these particles can affect the heart and lungs and cause serious health effects. EPA groups particle pollution into two categories:

"Inhalable coarse particles," such as those found near roadways and dusty industries, are larger than 2.5 micrometers and smaller than 10 micrometers in diameter.

"Fine particles," such as those found in smoke and haze, are 2.5 micrometers in diameter and smaller. These particles can be directly emitted from sources such as forest fires, or they can form when gases emitted from power plants, industries and automobiles react in the air.
Basic Information - Basics about particle pollution.

Health - Effects of particle p
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 10:29 pm
@BillRM,
Excellent.

BTW, I wonder the difference between "a standardised protocol" and "a common protocol."

Quote:
We used data from 22 European cohort studies, which created a total study population of 367 251 participants. All cohorts were general population samples, although some were restricted to one sex only. With a strictly standardised protocol, we assessed residential exposure to air pollutants as annual average concentrations of particulate matter (PM) with diameters of less than 2·5 μm (PM2·5), less than 10 μm (PM10), and between 10 μm and 2·5 μm (PMcoarse), PM2.5 absorbance, and annual average concentrations of nitrogen oxides (NO2 and NOx), with land use regression models. We also investigated two traffic intensity variables—traffic intensity on the nearest road (vehicles per day) and total traffic load on all major roads within a 100 m buffer. We did cohort-specific statistical analyses using confounder models with increasing adjustment for confounder variables, and Cox proportional hazards models with a common protocol. We obtained pooled effect estimates through a random-effects meta-analysis.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 10:55 pm
@oristarA,
Quote:
BTW, I wonder the difference between "a standardised protocol" and "a common protocol."


LOL you are overworking me so if you will forgive me I will leave that question to someone else who hopefully will have a far better background in such studies then a poor electrical engineer, who college days are forty years in the past, happen to have.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Tue 17 Dec, 2013 11:25 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Quote:
BTW, I wonder the difference between "a standardised protocol" and "a common protocol."


LOL you are overworking me so if you will forgive me I will leave that question to someone else who hopefully will have a far better background in such studies then a poor electrical engineer, who college days are forty years in the past, happen to have.


Just enjoy life. Smile
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

deal - Question by WBYeats
Let pupils abandon spelling rules, says academic - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Please, I need help. - Question by imsak
Is this sentence grammatically correct? - Question by Sydney-Strock
"come from" - Question by mcook
concentrated - Question by WBYeats
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Does "at risk" refer to "at risk of exposure to air pollution" or "at risk of natural death"?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 10/02/2024 at 06:31:22