Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42847088›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.)2026

The APHEA project as a turning point in modern environmental epidemiology: Current and future relevance.

Klea Katsouyanni, Joel Schwartz, Sylvia Medina, Francesco Forastiere, Aurelio Tobías

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental epidemiology (Philadelphia, Pa.), 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

5 authors.

Klea KatsouyanniNational and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Joel SchwartzHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
Sylvia MedinaSante Publique France, Paris, France.
Francesco ForastiereImperial College London, London, United Kingdom.
Aurelio TobíasInstitute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA), Spanish National Research Council (CSIC), Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the late 80s and early 90s, it was unclear whether the observed levels of air pollution were related to health effects, with fragmented evidence based on a few single-city studies. The Air Pollution and Health: a European Approach (APHEA)-funded projects started in 1993 and continued until 2009 and, later, within the context of the APHENA collaboration with researchers from the United States and Canada. APHEA was among the first to introduce the multicity/multicountry approach, using standardized methods and specifically developed protocols, including examining exposure-response functions and investigating nonlinearity, as well as a two-stage analytical approach, with city-specific analysis followed by a meta-analysis and meta-regression to identify effect modifiers. This approach consolidated the time-series regression as a central design for studying health effects of short-term air pollution exposures, enabled extensions to other environmental exposures, specifically climate-related, and contributed to further methodological advances. Health-effects associations, thus, became more robust and easier to compare across locations, facilitating the consensus later reached on the importance of air pollution exposure for health, as well as the funding of multicenter cohort studies. The APHEA projects produced concentration-response functions that were used in health impact assessment and policies, e.g., setting the World Health Organization guidelines and legal standards for short period exposures. This can be particularly relevant, as the health burden of chronic exposures may be enhanced by short-term peaks that trigger health events that would not have otherwise happened for a long time. Although APHEA methods were developed for air pollution health effects, they are also particularly relevant for climate-change-related studies, where short-term exposures (such as temperature or other daily indices combining meteorological variables) are extremely important. Further advantages of time-series studies, making the design important for current and future research, include their relevance for episode-based risk communication and emergency response planning; their smaller susceptibility, compared with cohort studies, to the impact of measurement error leading to underestimating health effects; and their easier implementation, making them indispensable for an initial exploration of a hypothesis.

Identifiers

PMID42847088
PMCPMC13645471

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.