Epidemiologic cohort studies have consistently demonstrated that long-term exposure to ambient fine particles (PM_2.5) is associated with mortality. Nevertheless, extrapolating results to understudied locations may involve considerable uncertainty. To explore this issue, this review discusses the evidence for (i) the associated risk of mortality, (ii) the shape of the concentration-response function, (iii) a causal interpretation, and (iv) how the source mix/composition of PM_2.5and population characteristics may alter the effect. The accumulated evidence suggests the following: (i) In the United States, the change in all-cause mortality risk per μg/m³is about 0.8%. (ii) The concentration-response function appears nonlinear. (iii) Causation is overwhelmingly supported. (iv) Fossil fuel combustion-related sources are likely more toxic than others, and age, race, and income may modify the effect. To illustrate the use of our findings in support of a risk assessment in an understudied setting, we consider Kuwait. However, given the complexity of this relationship and the heterogeneity in reported effects, it is unreasonable to think that, in such circumstances, point estimates can be meaningful. Consequently, quantitative probabilistic estimates, which cannot be derived objectively, become essential. Formally elicited expert judgment can provide such estimates, and this review provides the evidence to support an elicitation.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) forecasts from over 100 models are readily available. However, little published information exists regarding the performance of their uncertainty estimates (i.e. probabilistic performance). To evaluate their probabilistic performance, we employ the classical model (CM), an established method typically used to validate expert opinion. In this analysis, we assess both the predictive and probabilistic performance of COVID-19 forecasting models during 2021. We also compare the performance of aggregated forecasts (i.e. ensembles) based on equal and CM performance-based weights to an established ensemble from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Our analysis of forecasts of COVID-19 mortality from 22 individual models and three ensembles across 49 states indicates that - (i) good predictive performance does not imply good probabilistic performance, and vice versa; (ii) models often provide tight but inaccurate uncertainty estimates; (iii) most models perform worse than a naive baseline model; (iv) both the CDC and CM performance-weighted ensembles perform well; but (v) while the CDC ensemble was more informative, the CM ensemble was more statistically accurate across states. This study presents a worthwhile method for appropriately assessing the performance of probabilistic forecasts and can potentially improve both public health decision-making and COVID-19 modelling.