ArticlePloS one2025
Framework to prioritize health outcomes of particulate matter exposure using national claims data.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAlthough particulate matter (PM) exposure poses significant public health risks, previous research has focused on limited clinical areas. However, emerging evidence and pathological mechanisms of PM suggest that PM may exert broader systemic effects across a wide range of diseases. Therefore, we aim to identify and prioritize research questions to evaluate health impacts of PM exposure across various clinical specialties.
methodsA structured collaborative process was conducted between April and November 2024 in South Korea, incorporating systematic literature reviews, multidisciplinary expert discussions, and knowledge-sharing seminars. The primary outcomes were the identification of diseases potentially influenced by PM exposure and the development of corresponding research questions. The literature review synthesized more than 417 publications, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's integrated science assessment materials, a government-issued abstract compendium on PM covering 2010-2019, and studies published from 2020 to 2024 identified via a structured search. These were categorized by exposure duration (short- or long-term) and diseases outcome (incidence or progression). Prioritization was based on three criteria: pathological causality, clinical impact (public health burden), and feasibility using the Korea National Health Insurance Service (K-NHIS).
resultsA total of 99 experts from epidemiology, data science, and 14 clinical specialties participated. The experts panel (mean age: 46.1 years; mean professional experience: 20.5 years) identified 211 research questions across 80 diseases. These were classified by disease outcome: disease incidence (short-term, 54; long-term, 64) and progression (short-term, 47; long-term, 46). Notably, several clinical areas such as ophthalmology, dermatology, and otolaryngology were underrepresented.
conclusionThis structured, multidisciplinary approach broadened the scope of PM-related clinical research beyond commonly studied clinical area. This scalable framework can be adapted in other regions with similar claims data systems to guide evidence-based research agendas and inform public health policies.
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.