2022
DOI: 10.1038/s41370-022-00446-5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Monitoring vs. modeled exposure data in time-series studies of ambient air pollution and acute health outcomes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 9 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Potential measurement errors may be present, as exposure was based on city level averages and did not differentiate among heterogeneity in populations living in non-urban areas, air pollutant concentrations, or potential interactive effects, nor did the estimate deal with personal exposure. Previous studies have, however, found that assessing exposure at city level correlates strongly with temporal variation in personal exposure, thus utilising city level exposure assessment is a valid approach for time series studies focusing on short term exposure effects 4142. Lastly, this study did not consider the impact of different PM 2.5 compositions, as well as the interaction between temperature and other air pollutants (ie, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide), which could influence the PM 2.5 -O 3 interaction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Potential measurement errors may be present, as exposure was based on city level averages and did not differentiate among heterogeneity in populations living in non-urban areas, air pollutant concentrations, or potential interactive effects, nor did the estimate deal with personal exposure. Previous studies have, however, found that assessing exposure at city level correlates strongly with temporal variation in personal exposure, thus utilising city level exposure assessment is a valid approach for time series studies focusing on short term exposure effects 4142. Lastly, this study did not consider the impact of different PM 2.5 compositions, as well as the interaction between temperature and other air pollutants (ie, nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide), which could influence the PM 2.5 -O 3 interaction.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The relatively poor performance of both models compared to the smoke validation data (overall, Di RMSD = 29.3 μg/m 3 and R 2 = 0.07; Reid RMSD = 27.8 μg/m 3 and R 2 = 0.15) indicates that relying on estimates from machine learning models of air pollution concentrations to analyze the health impacts of wildfire smoke could introduce substantial exposure measurement error. Of course, only using monitoring data would likely result either in a much smaller sample size for health analyses (if one only considered people living in immediate vicinity of a monitor) or more exposure measurement error than the modeled estimates, , especially for areas without a monitor close by.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the patients in our study were usually taken to the nearest hospital for timely treatment, and the resultant non-differential misclassification could only cause Berkson bias, which would not influence the mean estimates of the associations but could lead to an inflation of confidence intervals. 36 , 76 …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the database did not include the location of symptom onset (complete address) for nearly three-quarters (73.2%) of the study population, we used concentrations of air pollutants measured at the nearest monitoring station to the reporting hospital to represent exposure for all participants, a proxy widely used in epidemiological studies of air pollution. 29 , 36 The median distance between the included hospitals and the nearest monitors was 4.4 km (range 0.04–49.9 km).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%