What do you think? How serious is the threat of air pollution for children's cognitive development - and what are the best solutions? PS. I added all the references in the description in case you want to have a look. A couple of comments address the issue of correlation vs. causation. That's indeed a tricky issue in this kind of studies. I didn't develop much on the methodology of the papers for fear of making the video a bit technical and boring, but the studies did their best to factor it all in. If you are interested, see the comment here below 🙂
Let's see the example of the study made in Barcelona. First, the researchers paired schools by socioeconomic vulnerability index (i.e. level of education, unemployment, and occupation in each area) and type of school (i.e., public/private). Second, parents had to respond to a questionnaire on family origin, gestational age and weight, breastfeeding, parental education, occupation, marital status, smoking during pregnancy, environmental tobacco smoke at home, commuting mode, and use of computer games. Third, they included other variables such as green areas in the neighbourhood, commuting habits, or noise pollution in the area. Finally, any potential ADHD symptoms were reported by teachers. The researchers used all this data of other variables through a sensitivity analysis. This is a method to understand how changes in input variables affect the output of a model; in other words, it helps understand how other factors (socioeconomic, behavioral, environmental) could influence the results, to rule out (or not) other influences. A stratified analysis also allowed them to compare results across different groups (e.g., high vs. low pollution schools, socioeconomic status). After these analyses, the authors concluded that associations between air pollution and cognitive outcomes remained robust, even though they did recognise that social class could be a minor confounder after all (a variable that affects both the exposure to pollution and the school performance).
Similarly, the study about the impacts of pollution on children's mental health also followed a methodology to avoid the correlation vs. causation trap. In other words, the authors didn't just study the correlation between pollution and psychiatric visits in the following days. They followed what is known as a conditional logistic regression model. This is a statistical model that allows to study the impact of one variable (e.g. pollution) on another (e.g. psychiatric visits) while adjusting for other variables. In the case of this study, the authors adjusted the model for temperature, humidity, and holiday effects. In other words, they included these variables in the model to make sure that they were not the factors that actually caused the increase in visits to psychiatric professionals.
This is scary. It's not just pollution either. Ultra-processed foods also have big impacts on cognitive development in both chidren and fetuses. It was to do with neuroinflammation from exposure to saturated fats and other ingredients if I recall correctly. I wrote an essay on this a while back, used a lot of sources, but the best were Spanish. Just think of all these compounding problems on cognitive development. Just think how much they'll compound further in future. Cognitive ability could decline alarmingly over the next few hundred years if nothing is done..
I have never read about the impacts of ultra-processed foods on cognitive development, but that's very interesting. I thought it only had an impact on obesity, diabetes, and other physical conditions. I will try to read more about that. But definitely, there's a mix of problems (pollution, ultra-processed foods, microplastics, social media, etc.) that is very worrisome in terms of children's brain development.
I often think of how this has affected me, I have a bad lung and I wonder if this is anything to do with it. Good video I hope you continue to help people by spreading good information.
As with the problem of ultra-processed foods, the solution on how to reduce pollution must be through the implementation of preventative legislation and policy. It is the only way it can be managed. Environmental changes will always be the most effective at changing outcomes.
Exactly. Measures like reducing traffic in streets where schools are located and similar can be a short-term policy to reduce a bit the impact of pollution, but long-term we need preventive legislation.
I’m honestly not convinced by the outcome of these papers. Correlation does not mean causation. If the place is polluted then it might mean poorer communities, more violence, more single parent homes. Even if the direct causation is proved in the papers this should have been explicitly stated. Otherwise, good quality and presentation of the content!
@LucyLabova @christopher5784 - hey, appreciate your comment! I totally get your point. Studying causation versus correlation is tricky. It's hard to control other variables. I didn't develop much on the methodology of the papers for fear of making the video a bit technical and boring, but the studies did their best to factor it all in. Let's see the example of the study made in Barcelona. First, the researchers paired schools by socioeconomic vulnerability index (i.e. level of education, unemployment, and occupation in each area) and type of school (i.e., public/private). Second, parents had to respond to a questionnaire on family origin, gestational age and weight, breastfeeding, parental education, occupation, marital status, smoking during pregnancy, environmental tobacco smoke at home, commuting mode, and use of computer games. Third, they included other variables such as green areas in the neighbourhood, commuting habits, or noise pollution in the area. Finally, any potential ADHD symptoms were reported by teachers. The researchers used all this data of other variables through a sensitivity analysis. This is a method to understand how changes in input variables affect the output of a model; in other words, it helps understand how other factors (socioeconomic, behavioral, environmental) could influence the results, to rule out (or not) other influences. A stratified analysis also allowed them to compare results across different groups (e.g., high vs. low pollution schools, socioeconomic status). After these analyses, the authors concluded that associations between air pollution and cognitive outcomes remained robust, even though they did recognise that social class could be a minor confounder after all (a variable that affects both the exposure to pollution and the school performance). PS. I added all the studies that I used in the video description, in case you want to have a look!
Similarly, the study about the impacts of pollution on children's mental health also followed a methodology to avoid the correlation vs. causation trap. In other words, the authors didn't just study the correlation between pollution and psychiatric visits in the following days. They followed what is known as a conditional logistic regression model. This is a statistical model that allows to study the impact of one variable (e.g. pollution) on another (e.g. psychiatric visits) while adjusting for other variables. In the case of this study, the authors adjusted the model for temperature, humidity, and holiday effects. In other words, they included these variables in the model to make sure that they were not the factors that actually caused the increase in visits to psychiatric professionals.
What do you think? How serious is the threat of air pollution for children's cognitive development - and what are the best solutions?
PS. I added all the references in the description in case you want to have a look. A couple of comments address the issue of correlation vs. causation. That's indeed a tricky issue in this kind of studies. I didn't develop much on the methodology of the papers for fear of making the video a bit technical and boring, but the studies did their best to factor it all in. If you are interested, see the comment here below 🙂
It's not just children, it's everyone, and any threat to what is commonly considered the main reason we succeed is a serious issue.
Let's see the example of the study made in Barcelona. First, the researchers paired schools by socioeconomic vulnerability index (i.e. level of education, unemployment, and occupation in each area) and type of school (i.e., public/private). Second, parents had to respond to a questionnaire on family origin, gestational age and weight, breastfeeding, parental education, occupation, marital status, smoking during pregnancy, environmental tobacco smoke at home, commuting mode, and use of computer games. Third, they included other variables such as green areas in the neighbourhood, commuting habits, or noise pollution in the area. Finally, any potential ADHD symptoms were reported by teachers.
The researchers used all this data of other variables through a sensitivity analysis. This is a method to understand how changes in input variables affect the output of a model; in other words, it helps understand how other factors (socioeconomic, behavioral, environmental) could influence the results, to rule out (or not) other influences. A stratified analysis also allowed them to compare results across different groups (e.g., high vs. low pollution schools, socioeconomic status).
After these analyses, the authors concluded that associations between air pollution and cognitive outcomes remained robust, even though they did recognise that social class could be a minor confounder after all (a variable that affects both the exposure to pollution and the school performance).
Similarly, the study about the impacts of pollution on children's mental health also followed a methodology to avoid the correlation vs. causation trap. In other words, the authors didn't just study the correlation between pollution and psychiatric visits in the following days.
They followed what is known as a conditional logistic regression model. This is a statistical model that allows to study the impact of one variable (e.g. pollution) on another (e.g. psychiatric visits) while adjusting for other variables. In the case of this study, the authors adjusted the model for temperature, humidity, and holiday effects. In other words, they included these variables in the model to make sure that they were not the factors that actually caused the increase in visits to psychiatric professionals.
Im surprised this video doesnt have more views, definitely deserves it
Thanks a lot for the kind words! Let's hope it gets some more views.
This is scary. It's not just pollution either. Ultra-processed foods also have big impacts on cognitive development in both chidren and fetuses. It was to do with neuroinflammation from exposure to saturated fats and other ingredients if I recall correctly. I wrote an essay on this a while back, used a lot of sources, but the best were Spanish. Just think of all these compounding problems on cognitive development. Just think how much they'll compound further in future. Cognitive ability could decline alarmingly over the next few hundred years if nothing is done..
I have never read about the impacts of ultra-processed foods on cognitive development, but that's very interesting. I thought it only had an impact on obesity, diabetes, and other physical conditions. I will try to read more about that. But definitely, there's a mix of problems (pollution, ultra-processed foods, microplastics, social media, etc.) that is very worrisome in terms of children's brain development.
I often think of how this has affected me, I have a bad lung and I wonder if this is anything to do with it. Good video I hope you continue to help people by spreading good information.
Sorry you hear about that. Being myself from one of the most polluted areas of Barcelona, I often wonder the same.
Thanks for the nice words!
As with the problem of ultra-processed foods, the solution on how to reduce pollution must be through the implementation of preventative legislation and policy. It is the only way it can be managed. Environmental changes will always be the most effective at changing outcomes.
Exactly. Measures like reducing traffic in streets where schools are located and similar can be a short-term policy to reduce a bit the impact of pollution, but long-term we need preventive legislation.
I’m honestly not convinced by the outcome of these papers. Correlation does not mean causation. If the place is polluted then it might mean poorer communities, more violence, more single parent homes. Even if the direct causation is proved in the papers this should have been explicitly stated. Otherwise, good quality and presentation of the content!
Yeah, my immediate thoughts.
@LucyLabova @christopher5784 - hey, appreciate your comment! I totally get your point. Studying causation versus correlation is tricky. It's hard to control other variables. I didn't develop much on the methodology of the papers for fear of making the video a bit technical and boring, but the studies did their best to factor it all in.
Let's see the example of the study made in Barcelona. First, the researchers paired schools by socioeconomic vulnerability index (i.e. level of education, unemployment, and occupation in each area) and type of school (i.e., public/private). Second, parents had to respond to a questionnaire on family origin, gestational age and weight, breastfeeding, parental education, occupation, marital status, smoking during pregnancy, environmental tobacco smoke at home, commuting mode, and use of computer games. Third, they included other variables such as green areas in the neighbourhood, commuting habits, or noise pollution in the area. Finally, any potential ADHD symptoms were reported by teachers.
The researchers used all this data of other variables through a sensitivity analysis. This is a method to understand how changes in input variables affect the output of a model; in other words, it helps understand how other factors (socioeconomic, behavioral, environmental) could influence the results, to rule out (or not) other influences. A stratified analysis also allowed them to compare results across different groups (e.g., high vs. low pollution schools, socioeconomic status).
After these analyses, the authors concluded that associations between air pollution and cognitive outcomes remained robust, even though they did recognise that social class could be a minor confounder after all (a variable that affects both the exposure to pollution and the school performance).
PS. I added all the studies that I used in the video description, in case you want to have a look!
Similarly, the study about the impacts of pollution on children's mental health also followed a methodology to avoid the correlation vs. causation trap. In other words, the authors didn't just study the correlation between pollution and psychiatric visits in the following days.
They followed what is known as a conditional logistic regression model. This is a statistical model that allows to study the impact of one variable (e.g. pollution) on another (e.g. psychiatric visits) while adjusting for other variables. In the case of this study, the authors adjusted the model for temperature, humidity, and holiday effects. In other words, they included these variables in the model to make sure that they were not the factors that actually caused the increase in visits to psychiatric professionals.
great content, very interesting!
Glad you enjoyed it! Thanks a lot for your comment.