Suppr超能文献

重新评估与农业氨介导的 PM2.5 相关的人类死亡风险。

Re-assessing human mortality risks attributed to PM2.5-mediated effects of agricultural ammonia.

机构信息

Cox Associates, Entanglement, and University of Colorado, USA.

出版信息

Environ Res. 2023 Apr 15;223:115311. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2023.115311. Epub 2023 Jan 30.

Abstract

How can and should epidemiologists and risk assessors assemble and present evidence for causation of mortality or morbidities by identified agents such as fine particulate matter or other air pollutants? As a motivating example, some scientists have warned recently that ammonia from the production of meat significantly increases human mortality rates in exposed populations by increasing the ambient concentration of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in air. We reexamine the support for such conclusions, including quantitative calculations that attribute deaths to PM2.5 air pollution by applying associational results such as relative risks, odds ratios, or slope coefficients from regression models to predict the effects on mortality or morbidity of reducing PM2.5 exposures. Taking an outside perspective from the field of causal artificial intelligence (CAI), we conclude that these attribution calculations are methodologically unsound. They produce unreliable conclusions because they ignore an essential distinction between differences in outcomes observed at different levels of exposure and changes in outcomes caused by changing exposure. We find that multiple studies that have examined associations between changes over time in particulate exposure and mortality risk instead of differences in exposures and corresponding mortality risks have found no clear evidence that observed changes in exposure help to predict or explain subsequent changes in mortality risks. We conclude that there is no sound theoretical or empirical reason to believe that reducing ammonia emissions from farms has reduced or would reduce human mortality risks. More generally, applying CAI principles and methods can potentially improve current widespread practices of unsound causal inferences and policy-relevant causal claims that are made without the benefit of formal causal analysis in air pollution health effects research and in other areas of applied epidemiology and public health risk assessment.

摘要

流行病学家和风险评估师如何以及应该如何收集和呈现证据,证明诸如细颗粒物或其他空气污染物等已识别剂对死亡率或发病率的因果关系?作为一个激励性的例子,最近一些科学家警告说,肉类生产产生的氨通过增加空气中细颗粒物 (PM2.5) 的环境浓度,显著增加了暴露人群的人类死亡率。我们重新审视了对这些结论的支持,包括定量计算,这些计算将死亡率归因于 PM2.5 空气污染,方法是将相对风险、优势比或回归模型中的斜率系数等关联结果应用于预测降低 PM2.5 暴露对死亡率或发病率的影响。从因果人工智能 (CAI) 领域的外部角度来看,我们得出的结论是,这些归因计算在方法上是不合理的。它们产生不可靠的结论,因为它们忽略了暴露水平不同时观察到的结果差异与暴露变化引起的结果变化之间的基本区别。我们发现,多项研究已经检查了颗粒物暴露随时间变化与死亡率风险之间的关联,而不是暴露差异与相应死亡率风险之间的关联,这些研究没有发现明显的证据表明观察到的暴露变化有助于预测或解释随后的死亡率风险变化。我们得出的结论是,没有合理的理论或经验依据认为减少农场氨气排放会降低或降低人类死亡率风险。更普遍地说,应用 CAI 原则和方法可以潜在地改进当前在空气污染健康影响研究和其他应用流行病学和公共卫生风险评估领域广泛存在的、没有经过正式因果分析的、不合理的因果推断和与政策相关的因果论断的做法。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验