Talk:Cardiopulmonary mortality attributable to PM2.5 in Helsinki metropolitan area
Contents
Formula
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: reference is not provided and formula may not be appropriate
----1: . The statement is not correctly defined. This statement includes two individual remarks: 1. The reference to the formula is not provided 2. The formula is inappropriate --Eva Kunseler 15:51, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: comment) Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--2: . No reference provided, illegible, unsure if it is correct and appropriate and there are other alternative models (e.g. J.H.Lubin, W.Gaffey, Relative risk models for assessing the joint effects of multiple factors) --Anazelle 15:24, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ←--3: . I agree with the first part of your statement. There is no reference there, which I will change right away. --Eva Kunseler 15:51, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: defence) ⇤--4: . I attack the second part of your statement. The formula correctly computes the mortality cases attributable to PM2,5 by multiplying Attributable Risk, Exposure and Baseline cardiovascular mortality using the information of the other variables in this assessment case. If there would be other hazards than PM2,5 to be taken into account, a joint relative risk model would need to be applied --Eva Kunseler 15:51, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) |
scope
| Fact discussion: . |
|---|
| Opening statement: scope is irrelevant
Closing statement: Resolution not yet found. (A closing statement, when resolved, should be updated to the main page.) |
| Argumentation:
⇤--1: . the scope includes PM2.5 exposure boundaries, which is irrelevant for this variable --Anazelle 15:26, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--2: . years provided should match the calculations or not be specified --Anazelle 15:41, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--3: . Only a part of the scope is irrelevant, the PM2,5 exposure does not need to be mentioned in the scope of this variable. I agree --Eva Kunseler 16:01, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) ⇤--4: . The number of years should be specified in the scope of this variable, since this variable ideally calculates the mortality cases for these years, as it is stated in the assessment case. If it turns out to be impossible to calculate the cases for these years, the data section should include the assumptions of why the data is used to compute the cases for these years anyway --Eva Kunseler 16:01, 18 February 2009 (EET) (type: truth; paradigms: science: attack) |
Clarification of scope
PM2,5 exposure
Should PM2,5 exposure be defined in the variable ?
PM2,5 exposure-response function
We are depending on how the ERF is defined in order to find the connecting baseline data on cardiopulmonary mortality.
- What health endpoints are covered with ERFs?
- What is the ICD code of the health endpoints
Population of Helsinki metropolitan area
We would need to know how the population of the Helsinki metropolitan area is defined in order to specify the baseline data on cardiopulmonary mortality for certain groups. For example, is there a distinction in subgroups such as age groups, gender, sensititivity etc.?
