ArticleJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2022
A new exposure metric for the cumulative effect of short-term exposure peaks of traffic-related ultrafine particles.
Article in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe adverse health outcomes of traffic-related ultrafine particles (UFPs) disproportionally impact near-highway neighborhoods. Current studies focus on either short-term health outcomes associated with short-term UFP exposures averaged over days or weeks, or long-term outcomes associated with long-term (yearly or longer) average UFP exposures. We hypothesized that frequent and repeated exposure to short-term UFP peaks that last for just hours could overwhelm or alter physiological defensive responses, resulting in long-term health issues. Herein, we propose a new exposure metric for measuring the cumulative effect of these peak exposures.
methodWe used UFP exposure data estimated by the Community Assessment of Freeway Exposure and Health (CAFEH) project, which recruited 704 participants from three pairs of near-highway/urban background neighborhoods in the Greater Boston Area between 2009 and 2012. CAFEH developed land use regression (LUR) models to estimate hourly averages of ambient UFP levels within the study areas based on mobile-monitored UFP data, and applied time-activity adjustment (TAA) to calculate adjusted final hourly estimates. Our alternative metric assigns cumulative peak exposure, which is determined as either the intensity (a high percentile of an individual's adjusted hourly UFP estimates) or the frequency (the number of hours with adjusted UFP estimates greater than a high percentile of all adjusted hourly UFP estimates of all participants in the study area) of UFP peaks.
resultsAfter TAA was applied, for most of the time, our cumulative peak exposure metrics were not strongly correlated with the annual average. However, the level of correlation varied greatly from neighborhood to neighborhood (Spearman's R ranges from 0.39 to 0.97).
conclusionThere was variation in UFP peak exposure that was not explained by the annual average, suggesting that our proposed peak metric distinct from annual average exposure metric.
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.