The DOI matches its Crossref record; 82 of the 83 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 52 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Differentiating the effects of fine and coarse particles on daily mortality in Shanghai, China
Open accessAbstract
The findings on health effects of ambient fine particles (PM2.5) and coarse particles (PM10-2.5) remain inconsistent. In China, PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 are not the criteria air pollutants, and their monitoring data are scarce. There have been no epidemiological studies of health effects of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 simultaneously in China. We conducted a time series study to examine the acute effects of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 on daily mortality in Shanghai, China from Mar. 4, 2004 to Dec. 31, 2005. We used the generalized additive model (GAM) with penalized splines to analyze the mortality, air pollution and covariate data. The average concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 were 56.4 microg/m3 and 52.3 microg/m3 in our study period, and PM2.5 constituted around 53.0% of the PM10 mass. Compared with the Global Air Quality Guidelines set by World Health Organization (10 microg/m3 for annual mean) and U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (15 microg/m3 for annual mean), the PM2.5 level in Shanghai was much higher. We found that PM2.5 was associated with the death rates from all causes and from cardiorespiratory diseases in Shanghai. We did not find a significant effect of PM10-2.5 on mortality outcomes. A10 microg/m3 increase in the 2-day moving average (lag01) concentration of PM2.5 corresponded to 0.36% (95% CI 0.11%, 0.61%), 0.41% (95% CI 0.01%, 0.82%) and 0.95% (95% CI 0.16%, 1.73%) increase of total, cardiovascular and respiratory mortality. For PM10-2.5, the effects were attenuated and less precise. Our analyses provide the first statistically significant evidence in China that PM2.5 has an adverse effect on population health and strengthen the rationale for further limiting levels of PM2.5 in outdoor air in Shanghai.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This time-series study in Shanghai found that fine particulate matter (PM2.5) was associated with increased daily all-cause, cardiovascular, and respiratory mortality, while coarse particles (PM10-2.5) showed no significant associations. The authors report the first statistically significant evidence in China that PM2.5 adversely affects population health.
Key findings
- Over 668 days (Mar. 4, 2004–Dec. 31, 2005), mean PM2.5 was 56.4 µg/m³ and mean PM10-2.5 was 52.3 µg/m³; PM2.5 constituted about 53.0% of PM10 mass.
- A 10 µg/m³ increase in lag01 PM2.5 was associated with 0.36% (95% CI 0.11%, 0.61%) higher total mortality, 0.41% (95% CI 0.01%, 0.82%) higher cardiovascular mortality, and 0.95% (95% CI 0.16%, 1.73%) higher respiratory mortality.
- PM10-2.5 effects were attenuated and not statistically significant: total mortality 0.12% (95% CI −0.13%, 0.36%), cardiovascular 0.34% (95% CI −0.05%, 0.73%), respiratory 0.40% (95% CI −0.34%, 1.13%).
- PM10 was significantly associated with total mortality (0.16%, 95% CI 0.02%, 0.30%) and cardiovascular mortality (0.31%, 95% CI 0.10%, 0.53%), but not respiratory mortality.
Methods
- Time-series analysis using a generalized additive model (GAM) with penalized splines, log link, and Poisson error; adjusted for time trend, day of week, temperature, relative humidity, and ozone.
- Mortality data came from the Shanghai Municipal Center of Disease Control and Prevention for nine urban districts; air pollution data came from a fixed-site Shanghai Environmental Monitoring Center station; PM10-2.5 was estimated by subtracting PM2.5 from PM10.
- Primary exposure was the 2-day moving average (lag01) of particles; sensitivity analyses varied lag structures, degrees of freedom, and exclusion of extreme concentrations; analyses used R 2.1.1 with the MGCV package.
Limitations
- The paper states that outdoor monitoring data were used to represent population exposure, which may introduce measurement error, generally biasing estimates downward, but personal exposure data were unavailable to quantify this.
- The paper states that particle assessment came from one monitoring station, and the single-city, limited time period may have limited power to detect significant PM10-2.5 associations.
- The paper states that only current-day weather was adjusted for and indoor particle sources were not considered; the text also makes evident that PM10-2.5 was estimated by subtraction rather than directly measured, and PM2.5/PM10-2.5 data were available for 661 of 668 days with no missing-data imputation.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
35 Not checked yet · 20 Own result · 15 Own method · 10 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did not find a significant effect of PM10-2.5 on mortality outcomes.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
“We did not find significant effects of PM10-2.5 on mortality outcomes.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A10µg/m3 increase in the 2-day moving average (lag01) concentration of PM2.5 corresponded to 0.36% (95%CI 0.11%, 0.61%), 0.41% (95% CI 0.01%, 0.82%) and 0.95% (95% CI 0.16%, 1.73%) increase of total, cardiovascular and respiratory mortality.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Regression results · plain
“total mortality increased 0.16% (95%CI 0.02% - 0.30%) for PM10, 0.36% (95%CI 0.11% - 0.61%) for PM2.5 and 0.12% (95%CI -0.13% - 0.36%) for PM10-2.5.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Regression results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A10µg/m3 increase in the 2-day moving average (lag01) concentration of PM2.5 corresponded to 0.36% (95%CI 0.11%, 0.61%), 0.41% (95% CI 0.01%, 0.82%) and 0.95% (95% CI 0.16%, 1.73%) increase of total, cardiovascular and respiratory mortality.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Regression results · plain
“Respiratory mortality 0.95 0.16 to 1.73”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Regression results · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A10µg/m3 increase in the 2-day moving average (lag01) concentration of PM2.5 corresponded to 0.36% (95%CI 0.11%, 0.61%), 0.41% (95% CI 0.01%, 0.82%) and 0.95% (95% CI 0.16%, 1.73%) increase of total, cardiovascular and respiratory mortality.”
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Regression results · plain
“Cardiovascular mortality 0.41 0.01 to 0.82”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § 3.2 Regression results · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Our study confirmed previous findings that fine particle was more strongly associated with cardio-respiratory mortality than with all-cause mortality risk (Ostro et al. 2006; Stolzel et al. 2006; Wichmann et al. 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Ostro et al. 2006 source
- Not checked yetcites Stolzel et al. 2006
- Not checked yetcites Wichmann et al. 2000
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with the prior results from both meta and multi-city analyses mentioned above, our estimates in Shanghai were lower.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An almost linear relationship between PM2.5 and respiratory mortality was observed for most PM2.5 levels represented in our data (chi-square test for linearity, p value >0.05) (Figure 2c).”
§ 3. Results > 3.2 Regression results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“total mortality increased 0.16% (95%CI 0.02% - 0.30%) for PM10, 0.36% (95%CI 0.11% - 0.61%) for PM2.5 and 0.12% (95%CI -0.13% - 0.36%) for PM10-2.5.”
§ 3. Results > 3.2 Regression results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“total mortality increased 0.16% (95%CI 0.02% - 0.30%) for PM10, 0.36% (95%CI 0.11% - 0.61%) for PM2.5 and 0.12% (95%CI -0.13% - 0.36%) for PM10-2.5.”
§ 3. Results > 3.2 Regression results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Consistent with several previous reports (Braga et al. 2001; Penttinen et al. 2004; Zanobetti et al. 2003), we found that the association of PM2.5 with respiratory mortality was stronger than with cardiovascular mortality.”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- Probably not a substantial claim. 26
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 were 56.4µg/m3 and 52.3µg/m3 in our study period”
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Data description · plain
“During our research period, the mean daily concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 were 56.4µg/m3 and 52.3µg/m3 respectively.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Data description · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“PM2.5 constituted around 53.0% of the PM10 mass.”
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Data description · plain
“the ratio of daily concentrations of PM2.5 and PM10 ranged from 12% to 97%, with an average of 53.0%.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Data description · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We found that PM2.5 was associated with the death rates from all causes and from cardio-respiratory diseases in Shanghai.”
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
“We found that the current level of PM2.5 was associated with elevated death rates from all causes and from cardio-respiratory diseases in Shanghai.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 4. Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For PM10-2.5, the effects were attenuated and less precise.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with the Global Air Quality Guidelines set by World Health Organization (10µg/m3 for annual mean) and U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (15µg/m3 for annual mean), the PM2.5 level in Shanghai was much higher.”
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Data description · plain
“Compared with the Global Air Quality Guidelines set by World Health Organization (10µg/m3 for annual mean and 25µg/m3 for 24-hour mean) and U.S. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (15µg/m3 for annual mean and 35µg/m3 for 24-hour mean), the PM2.5 level in Shanghai was much higher.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 3.1 Data description · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consistent with most prior studies (Englert 2004), we found significant effects of PM2.5 on both total and cardio-respiratory outcomes.”
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · plain
“In summary, we found significant associations of daily mortality with PM2.5, but not with PM10-2.5 in Shanghai.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For total and cardiovascular mortality, the exposure–response curves associated with PM2.5 exposure present positive nonlinear relationships, although the risks did not increase monotonically. The curves tend to become nonlinear and flat at lower and higher concentrations (Figures 2a and 2b).”
§ 3. Results > 3.2 Regression results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did not find significant associations of PM10-2.5 with total and respiratory mortality outcomes; however, PM10-2.5 was marginally associated with cardiovascular mortality (Table 3).”
§ 3. Results > 3.2 Regression results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effects of PM2.5 on total and cardiovascular mortality were statistically significant in single-day lag 0 and multi-day lag 01 (Figures 1a and 1b).”
§ 3. Results > 3.2 Regression results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For respiratory mortality, the effect of PM2.5 was significant on single-day lag 1 and multi-day lag 01 (Figure 1c).”
§ 3. Results > 3.2 Regression results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For total and cardiovascular mortality, we found significant effects of both PM10 and PM2.5; for respiratory mortality, only PM2.5 had a significant association.”
§ 3. Results > 3.2 Regression results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of note, we did not find a significant effect of PM10-2.5 on either total or respiratory mortality.”
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · plain
“In summary, we found significant associations of daily mortality with PM2.5, but not with PM10-2.5 in Shanghai.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § 5. Conclusions · plain
In the paper
“Numerous epidemiological studies during the past 20 years have confirmed that short-term exposure to outdoor air pollution contributes to increased cardiorespiratory mortality and morbidity (Brunekreef and Holgate 2002).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brunekreef and Holgate 2002
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These characteristics, combined with a different pattern of deposition in the lung, support the hypothesis that PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 may have different biologic effects and toxicity.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
In the paper
“To examine the independent effects of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5, O3 was also controlled in the regression models because our previous study showed that O3 had independent effect on daily mortality in Shanghai and the correlation between PM and O3 was low (Zhang et al. 2006).”
§ 2. Materials and Methods > 2.2 Statistical methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zhang et al. 2006 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We did not adjust for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in our regression models because PM was highly correlated with SO2 and NO2 in Shanghai (Zhang et al. 2006) and simultaneously entering SO2 (or NO2) into the models can yield unstable parameter estimates when the pollutants involved suffer high inter-correlation (Roberts 2006).”
§ 2. Materials and Methods > 2.2 Statistical methods
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We only used the actual collected data, and did not fill in the missing data of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5.”
§ 2. Materials and Methods > 2.1 Data
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, our measurement was conducted at a fix-site monitoring station under China National Quality Control. The station is mandated to not be in direct proximity to traffic, industrial sources, buildings or residential sources of emissions from the burning of coal-, waste-, or oil. Thus our monitoring results reflect the background urban particle level in Shanghai.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used data from the continuous monitoring of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 in Shanghai and had data for 668 consecutive days.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition to the whole-period (Mar. 4, 2004 to Dec. 31, 2005) analysis, we also did sensitivity analysis excluding days with extremely high or low particle concentrations (the highest and lowest 1% values).”
§ 2. Materials and Methods > 2.2 Statistical methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“While many epidemiological studies have reported associations of mortality and morbidity with ambient PM2.5 or PM10 (Pope and Dockery 2006), fewer studies have evaluated associations with PM10-2.5, which is largely due to lack of monitoring data.”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pope and Dockery 2006
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Because the assumption of the linearity between the log of mortality and particles may not be justified, we used the smoothing function to graphically analyze their relations (Bell et al. 2006; Daniels et al. 2004).”
§ 2. Materials and Methods > 2.2 Statistical methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bell et al. 2006 source
- Not checked yetcites Daniels et al. 2004
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the calculation of 24-hour average concentration of PM10, PM2.5 and PM10-2.5, at least 75% of the one-hour values on that particular day have to be available.”
§ 2. Materials and Methods > 2.1 Data
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Shanghai offers advantages for the investigation of the particle-mortality relationship. Our study area, nine urban districts of Shanghai, is densely populated. More than six-million permanent residents reside within 279 square kilometers. In addition, compared with the residents in North America, a lower proportion of Shanghai residents have access to or use air conditioning. Thus, the monitored”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Among the pollutants in the ambient mix, particulate matter (PM) has the most consistent association with mortality (Bell et al. 2004).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Bell et al. 2004
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Generally, the regression results did not change significantly, although the estimated effects of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 increased slightly after excluding extreme concentrations.”
§ 3. Results > 3.2 Regression results
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These studies measured PM2.5 concentrations weekly, with monitoring duration no more than one year.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Another advantage of our study is the ability to use cumulative exposure to PM, which is not always possible in the United States where PM is often measured every few days.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given that it is not easy to determine the optimal values of df for time trend and weather conditions in the models whether from statistical or biological plausibility perspectives, we did sensitivity analysis to test the impact of df selection on the regression results.”
§ 2. Materials and Methods > 2.2 Statistical methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Clearly, the changes of df for time trend (within the range of 5-25) and for weather conditions (within the range of 3-12) do not affect the regression results much, which suggest that our findings on the effects of particle concentrations on total morality are relatively robust in this respect.”
§ 3. Results > 3.2 Regression results
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The resulting measurement error may have implications for interpreting the effect of particles (Zeger et al. 2000), although a study suggested that this measurement error would generally tend to bias estimates downward (Samet et al. 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Samet et al. 2000
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Subjects who develop COPD, an important cause of respiratory mortality, may have weakened antioxidant defenses (Rahman et al. 1996), and PM2.5 can produce oxidative stress, in part because of lung inflammation (Dagher et al. 2005; Zeka et al. 2006).”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These findings provide possible pathways by which PM2.5 can affect the cardiovascular system.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For instance, Costa et al found that the in vivo pulmonary toxicity of urban particles varied with size, with the greatest toxicity from particles <1.7µm and the lowest toxicity from those >3.5µm (Costa and Dreher 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Costa and Dreher 1997
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We only adjusted for the current-day weather conditions; previous study suggests that the acute effect of PM on daily mortality is robust to the lag structure of weather conditions (Samet et al. 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Samet et al. 2000
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, ambient particles have been associated with increased plasma viscosity (Peters et al. 1997), sequestration of red cells in the circulation (Seaton et al. 1999), and indicators of cardiac autonomic dysfunction including increased heart rate, decreased heart rate variability, and increased cardiac arrhythmias (Dockery 2001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Peters et al. 1997 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“However, some studies suggested that the daily population average concentrations of fine particles derived from indoor sources are approximately independent of ambient levels (Wilson and Suh 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wilson and Suh 1997
hedged- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Local PM level, population sensitivity to PM, age distribution and especially different particle components may strongly affect the exposure-response relationships.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For example, ambient particles have been associated with increased plasma viscosity (Peters et al. 1997), sequestration of red cells in the circulation (Seaton et al. 1999), and indicators of cardiac autonomic dysfunction including increased heart rate, decreased heart rate variability, and increased cardiac arrhythmias (Dockery 2001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dockery 2001 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, ambient particles have been associated with increased plasma viscosity (Peters et al. 1997), sequestration of red cells in the circulation (Seaton et al. 1999), and indicators of cardiac autonomic dysfunction including increased heart rate, decreased heart rate variability, and increased cardiac arrhythmias (Dockery 2001).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Seaton et al. 1999 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Earlier simulation studies have shown that various regression models and parameter setting in the models (e.g. df selection, convergence criteria) would affect the regression coefficients (Dominici et al. 2002; Peng et al. 2006).”
What the sources say
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This is consistent with most prior studies (Anderson et al. 2001; Fairley 1999; Klemm and Mason 2000; Klemm et al. 2000; Lipfert et al. 2000; Ostro et al. 2000; Schwartz et al. 1996; Villeneuve et al. 2003), but in contrast to several others (Burnett et al. 2000; Cifuentes et al. 2000; Mar et al. 2000).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“COPD patients may also be susceptible to particulate air pollution because obstructive airways disease leads to enhanced deposition of inhaled particles (Kim and Kang 1997).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kim and Kang 1997
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“When this is true, failure to measure indoor sources will not introduce further bias in the estimated effects of ambient particles (Zeger et al. 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zeger et al. 2000 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Compared with studies in Europe and North America, the data we collected were also limited by virtue of the single city and limited time period.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Subjects who develop COPD, an important cause of respiratory mortality, may have weakened antioxidant defenses (Rahman et al. 1996), and PM2.5 can produce oxidative stress, in part because of lung inflammation (Dagher et al. 2005; Zeka et al. 2006).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rahman et al. 1996 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“The resulting measurement error may have implications for interpreting the effect of particles (Zeger et al. 2000), although a study suggested that this measurement error would generally tend to bias estimates downward (Samet et al. 2000).”
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Zeger et al. 2000 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
There have been no epidemiological studies of health effects of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 simultaneously in China.
“There have been no epidemiological studies of health effects of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 simultaneously in China.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There have been no epidemiological studies investigating the health effect of PM10-2.5 in China.
“To our knowledge, there have been no epidemiological studies investigating the health effect of PM10-2.5 in China.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In China, PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 are not the criteria air pollutants.
“In China, PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 are not the criteria air pollutants, and their monitoring data are scarce.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Particle levels in Shanghai are much higher than in developed countries.
“Compared with developed countries, particle levels in Shanghai are much higher.”
“Compared with developed countries, the level of PM2.5 in Shanghai is much higher.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The composition of the motor vehicle fleet in developed countries differs substantially from that in Shanghai.
“In addition, the composition of the motor vehicle fleet in developed countries differs substantially from that in Shanghai.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most prior air pollution time-series studies have been based on the GAM model in S-PLUS.
“Most prior air pollution time-series studies have been based on the GAM model in S-PLUS.”
The paper relies on this without support.
PM10-2.5 is typically mechanically generated by crushing or grinding, and is often dominated by re-suspended dusts and crustal material from paved or unpaved roads or from construction, farming, and mining activities.
“PM10-2.5 is typically mechanically generated by crushing or grinding, and is often dominated by re-suspended dusts and crustal material from paved or unpaved roads or from construction, farming, and mining activities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Generally, nature-generated particles are less toxic to the cardio-respiratory system than combustion-related particles, such as oil fly ash particles.
“Generally, these nature-generated particles are less toxic to the cardio-respiratory system than combustion-related particles, such as oil fly ash particles.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In Shanghai, little or no indoor air monitoring data are available.
“In Shanghai, little or no indoor air monitoring data are available.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Previous work on this issue has focused primarily on PM10, although strong mortality associations have been demonstrated for the fine fraction (Kan et al. 2007; Ostro et al. 2006; Schwartz et al. 1996).”
From Potential confounding of particulate matter on the short-term association between ozone and mortality in multisite time-series studies (2007) · cites this paper as Kan et al. 2007
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 2. Materials and Methods > 2.1 Data
“Our study area was limited to the traditional nine urban Districts of Shanghai (289 km2)”
§ 4. Discussion
“Our study area, nine urban districts of Shanghai, is densely populated. More than six-million permanent residents reside within 279 square kilometers.”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 3. Results > 3.1 Data description
“Summary statistics of daily deaths, air pollutant concentrations and weather conditions in Shanghai (Mar. 4, 2004-Dec. 30, 2005)”
§ 2. Materials and Methods > 2.1 Data
“Daily mortality data (excluding accidents & injuries) of residents living in the nine urban districts of Shanghai from Mar. 4, 2004 to Dec. 31, 2005 (668 days)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 4. Discussion
“We used data from the continuous monitoring of PM2.5 and PM10-2.5 in Shanghai and had data for 668 consecutive days.”
§ 3. Results > 3.1 Data description
“PM 2.5 (µg/m 3 ) 661 56.4 ± 1.34 8.3 32.5 49.0 72.4 235.0 PM 10-2.5 (µg/m 3 ) 661”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 1. Introduction
“Currently, the China National Air Quality Standard sets the limits of particles only for PM10: 50µg/m3 for daily (24hr) average, and 150µg/m3 for annual average.”
§ 3. Results > 3.1 Data description
“China National Air Quality Standard for residential area (100µg/m3 for annual mean and 150µg/m3 for 24-hour mean).”
Citations
Cites
Brown, R. A., Hastie, T. J., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1991) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532174 · Cited by 8,263
Koyak, R. A., Hastie, T. J., & Tibshirani, R. J. (1991) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290538 · Cited by 7,717
Health Effects of Fine Particulate Air Pollution: Lines that Connect
Pope, C. A., & Dockery, D. W. (2006) · Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association · doi:10.1080/10473289.2006.10464485 · Cited by 6,900
Brunekreef, B., & Holgate, S. T. (2002) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11274-8 · Cited by 4,701
Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Hospital Admission for Cardiovascular and Respiratory Diseases
Dominici, F., Peng, R. D., Bell, M. L., Pham, L. D., McDermott, A., Zeger, S. L., & Samet, J. M. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.10.1127 · Cited by 2,686
Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Disease
Brook, R. D., Franklin, B. A., Cascio, W. E., Hong, Y., Howard, G., D, M. L. M., Luepker, R. V., Mittleman, M. A., Samet, J. M., Smith, S. C., et al. (2004) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.0000128587.30041.c8 · Cited by 2,454
Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in 20 U.S. Cities, 1987–1994
Samet, J. M., Dominici, F., Curriero, F. C., Coursac, I., & Zeger, S. L. (2000) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200012143432401 · Cited by 2,257
Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality in 20 U.S. Cities
Sarnat, J. A., Schwartz, J. D., & Suh, H. H. (2001) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm200104193441614 · Cited by 1,903
Is Daily Mortality Associated Specifically with Fine Particles?
Schwartz, J., Dockery, D. W., & Neas, L. M. (1996) · Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association · doi:10.1080/10473289.1996.10467528 · Cited by 1,561
Ozone and short-term mortality in 95 US urban communities, 1987–2000
Bell, M. L. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.292.19.2372 · Cited by 1,202
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brook, R. D., Rajagopalan, S., Pope, C. A., Brook, J. R., Bhatnagar, A., Diez-Roux, A. V., Holguin, F., Hong, Y., Luepker, R. V., Mittleman, M. A., et al. (2010) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/cir.0b013e3181dbece1 · Cited by 6,548
PM 2.5 in China: Measurements, sources, visibility and health effects, and mitigation
Pui, D. Y. H., Chen, S.-C., & Zuo, Z. (2014) · Particuology · doi:10.1016/j.partic.2013.11.001 · Cited by 821
Ambient air pollution, climate change, and population health in China
Kan, H., Chen, R., & Tong, S. (2011) · Environment International · doi:10.1016/j.envint.2011.03.003 · Cited by 729
Self-citationWeather conditions conducive to Beijing severe haze more frequent under climate change
Cai, W., Li, K., Liao, H., Wang, H., & Wu, L. (2017) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/nclimate3249 · Cited by 653
Amato, F., Pandolfi, M., Escrig, A., Querol, X., Alastuey, A., Pey, J., Perez, N., & Hopke, P. K. (2009) · Atmospheric Environment · doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2009.02.039 · Cited by 584
Metadata
- Authors
- Kan, H., London, S. J., Chen, G., Zhang, Y., Song, G., Zhao, N., Jiang, L., & Chen, B.
- Affiliations
- Fudan University (CN)
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (US)
- Shanghai Municipal Center For Disease Control Prevention (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Kan, Haidong
- Venue
- Environment International
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2007-04
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 376-384
- ISSN
- 0160-4120 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2094002
- OpenAlex
- W2138898408
- Semantic Scholar
- efe61f85b1a1287012c7318b32129ae3a7a47a46
- Cited by
- 339
- References
- 83
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 17
- FWCI
- 9.34
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Environment International (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01ES043012)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Indoor Air Quality and Microbial Exposure
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Climate Change and Health Impacts
- Keywords
- PM2.5, PM2.5-10, coarse particles, air pollution health effects, daily mortality, cardiovascular mortality, respiratory mortality, all-cause mortality, Shanghai, air quality guidelines, air quality standards
- MeSH terms
- Air Pollutants, Cardiovascular Diseases, China, Cities, Environmental Exposure, Humans, Mortality, Ozone, Particle Size, Respiratory Tract Diseases, Urban Health, Particulate Matter
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
