ArticleInhalation toxicology2011
The toxicological evaluation of realistic emissions of source aerosols study: statistical methods.
Article in Inhalation toxicology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- What weather variables are important in predicting heat-related mortality? A new application of statistical learning methods.Environmental research · 2014Article
- Toxicological evaluation of realistic emission source aerosols (TERESA)-power plant studies: assessment of cellular responses.Inhalation toxicology · 2011Article
- Toxicological evaluation of realistic emission source aerosols (TERESA): introduction and overview.Inhalation toxicology · 2011Article
- Toxicological evaluation of realistic emission source aerosols (TERESA)--power plant studies: assessment of breathing pattern.Inhalation toxicology · 2011Article
- Toxicological evaluation of realistic emission source aerosols (TERESA): summary and conclusions.Inhalation toxicology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The Toxicological Evaluation of Realistic Emissions of Source Aerosols (TERESA) study involved withdrawal, aging, and atmospheric transformation of emissions of three coal-fired power plants. Toxicological evaluations were carried out in rats exposed to different emission scenarios with extensive exposure characterization. Data generated had multiple levels of resolution: exposure, scenario, and constituent chemical composition. Here, we outline a multilayered approach to analyze the associations between exposure and health effects beginning with standard ANOVA models that treat exposure as a categorical variable. The model assessed differences in exposure effects across scenarios (by plant). To assess unadjusted associations between pollutant concentrations and health, univariate analyses were conducted using the difference between the response means under exposed and control conditions and a single constituent concentration as the predictor. Then, a novel multivariate analysis of exposure composition and health was used based on Random Forests(™), a recent extension of classification and regression trees that were applied to the outcome differences. For each exposure constituent, this approach yielded a nonparametric measure of the importance of that constituent in predicting differences in response on a given day, controlling for the other measured constituent concentrations in the model. Finally, an R(2) analysis compared the relative importance of exposure scenario, plant, and constituent concentrations on each outcome. Peak expiratory flow (PEF) is used to demonstrate how the multiple levels of the analysis complement each other to assess constituents most strongly associated with health effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.