Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32158985›Full record

ArticleGeoHealth2017

Spatial and temporal estimates of population exposure to wildfire smoke during the Washington state 2012 wildfire season using blended model, satellite, and in situ data.

William Lassman, Bonne Ford, Ryan W Gan, Gabriele Pfister, Sheryl Magzamen, Emily V Fischer, Jeffrey R Pierce

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in GeoHealth, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The upside and challenge of getting it wrong.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Mortality attributable to PMScience advances · 2024
    Article
  8. Evaluation of Model-Based PMEnvironmental science & technology · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Daily PMScientific data · 2021
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

William LassmanDepartment of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8143-7313
Bonne FordDepartment of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.
Ryan W GanDepartment of Environmental and Radiological Health Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6111-0380
Gabriele PfisterNational Center for Atmospheric Research Boulder Colorado USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9177-1315
Sheryl MagzamenDepartment of Environmental and Radiological Health Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.
Emily V FischerDepartment of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.
Jeffrey R PierceDepartment of Atmospheric Science Colorado State University Fort Collins Colorado USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the western U.S., smoke from wild and prescribed fires can severely degrade air quality. Due to changes in climate and land management, wildfires have increased in frequency and severity, and this trend is expected to continue. Consequently, wildfires are expected to become an increasingly important source of air pollutants in the western U.S. Hence, there is a need to develop a quantitative understanding of wildfire-smoke-specific health effects. A necessary step in this process is to determine who was exposed to wildfire smoke, the concentration of the smoke during exposure, and the duration of the exposure. Three different tools have been used in past studies to assess exposure to wildfire smoke: in situ measurements, satellite-based observations, and chemical-transport model (CTM) simulations. Each of these exposure-estimation tools has associated strengths and weakness. We investigate the utility of blending these tools together to produce estimates of PM

Indexed as

exposuremodelsobservationssatellitessmokewildfires

Identifiers

PMID32158985
PMCPMC7007107

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.