SynthesisEnvironmental health perspectives2025
A State of the Science Review of Wildfire-Specific Fine Particulate Matter Data Sources, Methods, and Models.
Synthesis in Environmental health perspectives, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Winter inversions and summer smoke: A season-dependent approach to PM₂.₅ modeling with low-cost sensors in complex terrain.The Science of the total environment · 2026Article
- Assessing the Evidence for Differential Health Effects of Wildfire Smoke Across Fires and Populations: A Critical Review of Recent Studies.Current environmental health reports · 2026Review
- NLRP3 inflammasome activation by particles and fibers: implications for human hazard assessment.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- A Comparative Analysis of Wildland Fire Smoke PMGeoHealth · 2026Article
- Multiyear wildfire smoke exposure (MultiWiSE) metrics: a data-driven approach to characterizing episodic PMJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology · 2026Article
- Epidemiological and Clinical Evidence on the Association Between Wildfire PM2.5 and Pulmonary Health Outcomes.Cureus · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite progress in reducing industrial air pollution, rising wildfire frequency and intensity, driven in part by climate change, pose significant health risks. Accurate estimates of wildfire-generated fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
objectiveThis review evaluates existing methodologies and data sources for estimating wildfire-generated
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search across Medline, Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Embase (January 2018 to March 2024) using keywords such as "
resultsFrom the 33 studies included, three main estimation approaches emerged: chemical extraction, thresholding, and integration of satellite and fire-specific data (e.g., smoke plumes and fire perimeters). Most studies combined ground-based monitor data, satellite-derived aerosol optical depth, and explanatory data like meteorology and land use. The three public datasets indicated that in California, wildfire-specific
conclusionsWe offer a review of current data sources used for wildfire-specific
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.