Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42149274›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2026

Air pollution-related health impacts from domestic waste burning and associated interventions: the merits of a traditional versus machine learning scoping review methodology.

Thandi Kapwata, Candice Webster, Wen Guan Gavin Chen, Muhammad Ibrahim Suder, Devon Jarvis, Alex Vogt, Nomfundo Mahlangeni, Tracey Laban, Natasha Naidoo, Pierpaolo Mudu and 2 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Thandi KapwataClimate Change and Health Research Programme, Environment and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa. Thandi.Kapwata@mrc.ac.za.
Candice WebsterClimate Change and Health Research Programme, Environment and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.
Wen Guan Gavin ChenSchool of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Muhammad Ibrahim SuderSchool of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Devon JarvisSchool of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Alex VogtSchool of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Nomfundo MahlangeniDepartment of Environmental Health, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Tracey LabanClimate Change and Health Research Programme, Environment and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.
Natasha NaidooClimate Change and Health Research Programme, Environment and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.
Pierpaolo MuduDepartment of Environment, Climate Change and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Kerolyn ShairsinghDepartment of Environment, Climate Change and Health, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
Caradee Y WrightClimate Change and Health Research Programme, Environment and Health Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Pretoria, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Regularly updating repositories of air pollution impacts on health is essential for evidence-based policies, interventions, and progress monitoring. However, this is often time-consuming and labour-intensive. Automation can ensure up-to-date evidence; reduce retrieval, screening time, and costs; and make information accessible to non-academic stakeholders. This study investigated whether a machine learning approach can perform any stages of a traditional scoping review on the health impacts, policies, and interventions related to air pollution due to domestic waste burning. A traditional approach was conducted in parallel with machine learning methods enabling a comparison of the efficiency and quality of the partially automated approach against the manual review. Findings from the two approaches were compared and the final set of included articles were considered for (1) reported impacts of waste burning on health outcomes and (2) recommendations on solutions and interventions to prevent/reduce adverse effects on health from waste burning. We found a range of health impacts associated with waste burning, including low birth weight, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, adverse respiratory outcomes like asthma and wheeze, cancer risk, and mortality. Few studies proposed solutions or evaluated the effectiveness of interventions. The ML approach showed a tendency towards false positives, which are preferable to false negatives (where relevant papers were excluded). Results showed that the model can conduct initial searches and decisions for the review. However, the articles included in the model should be screened manually for final acceptance. Therefore, we propose a hybrid approach be used until the automated model can be further refined.

Indexed as

Air PollutionEnvironmental MonitoringIncinerationMachine LearningAir PollutantsHumansOpen Waste BurningAir PollutantsAir pollutionArtificial intelligenceBig dataBiostatisticsComputational scienceDeep learningEnvironmental healthScoping reviewsWaste burningWaste policies

Identifiers

PMID42149274
PMCPMC13183761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.