scholarly journals Exposure measurement error in air pollution studies: the impact of shared, multiplicative measurement error on epidemiological health risk estimates

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 631-643
Author(s):  
Mariam S. Girguis ◽  
Lianfa Li ◽  
Fred Lurmann ◽  
Jun Wu ◽  
Carrie Breton ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Eun-hye Yoo ◽  
Qiang Pu ◽  
Youngseob Eum ◽  
Xiangyu Jiang

The impact of individuals’ mobility on the degree of error in estimates of exposure to ambient PM2.5 concentrations is increasingly reported in the literature. However, the degree to which accounting for mobility reduces error likely varies as a function of two related factors—individuals’ routine travel patterns and the local variations of air pollution fields. We investigated whether individuals’ routine travel patterns moderate the impact of mobility on individual long-term exposure assessment. Here, we have used real-world time–activity data collected from 2013 participants in Erie/Niagara counties, New York, USA, matched with daily PM2.5 predictions obtained from two spatial exposure models. We further examined the role of the spatiotemporal representation of ambient PM2.5 as a second moderator in the relationship between an individual’s mobility and the exposure measurement error using a random effect model. We found that the effect of mobility on the long-term exposure estimates was significant, but that this effect was modified by individuals’ routine travel patterns. Further, this effect modification was pronounced when the local variations of ambient PM2.5 concentrations were captured from multiple sources of air pollution data (‘a multi-sourced exposure model’). In contrast, the mobility effect and its modification were not detected when ambient PM2.5 concentration was estimated solely from sparse monitoring data (‘a single-sourced exposure model’). This study showed that there was a significant association between individuals’ mobility and the long-term exposure measurement error. However, the effect could be modified by individuals’ routine travel patterns and the error-prone representation of spatiotemporal variability of PM2.5.


2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitris Evangelopoulos ◽  
Klea Katsouyanni ◽  
Joel Schwartz ◽  
Heather Walton

Abstract Background Most epidemiological studies estimate associations without considering exposure measurement error. While some studies have estimated the impact of error in single-exposure models we aimed to quantify the effect of measurement error in multi-exposure models, specifically in time-series analysis of PM2.5, NO2, and mortality using simulations, under various plausible scenarios for exposure errors. Measurement error in multi-exposure models can lead to effect transfer where the effect estimate is overestimated for the pollutant estimated with more error to the one estimated with less error. This complicates interpretation of the independent effects of different pollutants and thus the relative importance of reducing their concentrations in air pollution policy. Methods Measurement error was defined as the difference between ambient concentrations and personal exposure from outdoor sources. Simulation inputs for error magnitude and variability were informed by the literature. Error-free exposures with their consequent health outcome and error-prone exposures of various error types (classical/Berkson) were generated. Bias was quantified as the relative difference in effect estimates of the error-free and error-prone exposures. Results Mortality effect estimates were generally underestimated with greater bias observed when low ratios of the true exposure variance over the error variance were assumed (27.4% underestimation for NO2). Higher ratios resulted in smaller, but still substantial bias (up to 19% for both pollutants). Effect transfer was observed indicating that less precise measurements for one pollutant (NO2) yield more bias, while the co-pollutant (PM2.5) associations were found closer to the true. Interestingly, the sum of single-pollutant model effect estimates was found closer to the summed true associations than those from multi-pollutant models, due to cancelling out of confounding and measurement error bias. Conclusions Our simulation study indicated an underestimation of true independent health effects of multiple exposures due to measurement error. Using error parameter information in future epidemiological studies should provide more accurate concentration-response functions.


2009 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-111 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa K Baxter ◽  
Rosalind J Wright ◽  
Christopher J Paciorek ◽  
Francine Laden ◽  
Helen H Suh ◽  
...  

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gretchen T Goldman ◽  
James A Mulholland ◽  
Armistead G Russell ◽  
Matthew J Strickland ◽  
Mitchel Klein ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 108 (5) ◽  
pp. 419-426 ◽  
Author(s):  
S L Zeger ◽  
D Thomas ◽  
F Dominici ◽  
J M Samet ◽  
J Schwartz ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document