The relationship of lung function with ambient temperature

<div><p>Background</p><p>Lung function is complex trait with both genetic and environmental factors contributing to variation. It is unknown how geographic factors such as climate affect population respiratory health.</p><p>Objective</p><p>To determine whether ambient air temperature is associated with lung function (FEV₁) in the general population.</p><p>Design/Setting</p><p>Associations between spirometry data from two National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) periods representative of the U.S. non-institutionalized population and mean annual ambient temperature were assessed using survey-weighted multivariate regression.</p><p>Participants/Measurements</p><p>The NHANES III (1988–94) cohort included 14,088 individuals (55.6% female) and the NHANES 2007–12 cohort included 14,036 individuals (52.3% female), with mean ages of 37.4±23.4 and 34.4±21.8 years old and FEV₁ percent predicted values of 99.8±15.8% and 99.2±14.5%, respectively.</p><p>Results</p><p>After adjustment for confounders, warmer ambient temperatures were associated with lower lung function in both cohorts (NHANES III <i>p</i> = 0.020; NHANES 2007–2012 <i>p</i> = 0.014). The effect was similar in both cohorts with a 0.71% and 0.59% predicted FEV₁ decrease for every 10°F increase in mean temperature in the NHANES III and NHANES 2007–2012 cohorts, respectively. This corresponds to ~2 percent predicted difference in FEV₁ between the warmest and coldest regions in the continental United States.</p><p>Conclusions</p><p>In the general U.S. population, residing in regions with warmer ambient air temperatures was associated with lower lung function with an effect size similar to that of traffic pollution. Rising temperatures associated with climate change could have effects on pulmonary function in the general population.</p></div

Survey weighted means (± S.E.) for study cohorts.

<p>Survey weighted means (± S.E.) for study cohorts.</p

Multiple Logistic Regression of Factors Associated with Reporting High Interest in Each Career Pathway at Ph.D. Completion.

<p>Adjusted Odds Ratios (and 95% Confidence Interval) Shown.</p><p>* p<0.05.</p><p>** p<0.0001.</p><p>Multiple Logistic Regression of Factors Associated with Reporting High Interest in Each Career Pathway at Ph.D. Completion.</p

Adjusted survey weighted multivariate regressions to assess the effect of spirometry temperature in the NHANES III cohort^*.

<p>Adjusted survey weighted multivariate regressions to assess the effect of spirometry temperature in the NHANES III cohort^{<a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0191409#t004fn001" target="_blank">*</a>}.</p

Survey weighted univariate regressions.

<p>Survey weighted univariate regressions.</p

Survey weighted multivariate regressions unadjusted and adjusted for potential confounders for study population.

<p>Survey weighted multivariate regressions unadjusted and adjusted for potential confounders for study population.</p

Distinct career interest profiles among Ph.D. biomedical scientists by social identity.

<p>(A) Bar graph showing mean response for sample of 1500 American biomedical scientists who received Ph.Ds. between 2007–2012 when asked to rate their level of interest in each of the following career paths at Ph.D. entry (black), Ph.D. completion (grey), on a 5-point scale (where 1 represents “no interest” and 5 represents “strong interest”): faculty at a research-intensive university; faculty at a teaching intensive university; a research career outside of academia (e.g. industry, pharmaceutical, biotech, government, start-up, etc.); and a non-research career (consulting, policy, science writing, patent law, business, etc.). (B) Pie chart showing the social identities of the respondents. Males from well-represented racial/ethnic backgrounds (WRM) are shown in blue and represent 25% of the sample; males from underrepresented minority backgrounds (URMM) are shown in red and represent 5.8% of the sample; females from well well-represented racial backgrounds (WRF) are shown in green and represent 53.9% of the sample; females from URM backgrounds (URMF) are shown in purple and represent 12.6% of the sample; and respondents declining to state racial/ethnic background or with an alternative gender identification are shown in grey and represent 2.7% of the sample. (C) Bar chart showing mean interest in the four career paths at Ph.D. entry, Ph.D. completion across social identity. Group means were compared at each time point and statistical significance was determined using Bonferroni corrected ANOVA. (D) Plot showing the average, individual level paired-difference between career pathway interest at Ph.D. completion versus Ph.D. entry across social identity groups. Statistical significance was determined using Bonferroni corrected ANOVA.</p