Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Influence of exposure measurement errors on results from epidemiologic studies of different designs

Abstract

In epidemiologic studies of health effects of air pollution, measurements or models are used to estimate exposure. Exposure estimates have errors that propagate to effect estimates in exposure-response models. We critically evaluate how types of exposure measurement error influenced bias and precision of effect estimates to understand conditions affecting interpretation of exposure-response models for epidemiologic studies of exposure to PM2.5, NO2, and SO2. We reviewed available literature on exposure measurement error for time-series and long-term exposure epidemiology studies. For time-series studies, time–activity error (daily exposure concentration did not account for variation in exposure due to time–activity during a day) and nonambient (indoor) sources negatively biased the effect estimates and increased standard error, so uncertainty grew with increasing bias while underestimating the true health effect in these studies. Spatial error (deviation between true exposure concentration at an individual’s location and concentration at a receptor) was ascribed to negatively biased effect estimates in most cases. Positive bias occurred for spatially variable pollutants when the variance of error correlated with the exposure estimate. For long-term exposure studies, most spatial errors did not bias the effect estimate. For both time-series and long-term exposure studies reviewed, large uncertainties were observed when exposure concentration was modeled with low spatial and temporal resolution for a spatially variable pollutant.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. 1.

    Clean Air Act, as amended by Pub. L. No. 101–549 (1990).

  2. 2.

    U.S. EPA. Integrated science assessment for particulate matter. EPA Report. EPA/600/R-08/139F. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment- RTP Division, 2009.

  3. 3.

    EPA U.S. Integrated science assessment for oxides of nitrogen (final report). EPA Report. EPA/600/R-15/068. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Center for Environmental Assessment, 2016.

  4. 4.

    U.S. EPA. Integrated science assessment for sulfur oxides: Health criteria. EPA Report. EPA/600/R-17/451. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, National Center for Environmental Assessment-RTP, 2017.

  5. 5.

    EPA U.S. Preamble to the Integrated Science Assessments. EPA Report. EPA/600/R-15/067. Research Triangle Park, NC: National Center for EnvironmentalAssessment, Office of Research and Development, 2015.

  6. 6.

    Lipfert FW, Wyzga RE. The effects of exposure error on environmental epidemiology. In Proceedings of the 2nd Colloquium on Particulate Air Pollution and Health, Park City, UT, 1996.

  7. 7.

    Armstrong BK, White E, Saracci R. Principles of exposure measurement in epidemiology. New York, NY: Oxford Univ. Press; 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Szpiro AA, Paciorek CJ, Sheppard L. Does more accurate exposure prediction necessarily improve health effect estimates? Epidemiology. 2011;22:680–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Goldman GT, Mulholland JA, Russell AG, Strickland MJ, Klein M, Waller LA, et al. Impact of exposure measurement error in air pollution epidemiology: effect of error type in time-series studies. Environ Health. 2011;10:61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Reeves GK, Cox DR, Darby SC, Whitley E. Some aspects of measurement error in explanatory variables for continuous and binary regression models. Stat Med. 1998;17:2157–77.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Basagaña X, Aguilera I, Rivera M, Agis D, Foraster M, Marrugat J, et al. Measurement error in epidemiologic studies of air pollution based on land-use regression models. Am J Epidemiol. 2013;178:1342–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Goldman GT, Mulholland JA, Russell AG, Srivastava A, Strickland MJ, Klein M, et al. Ambient air pollutant measurement error: characterization and impacts in a time-series epidemiologic study in Atlanta. Environ Sci Technol. 2010;44:7692–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Goldman GT, Mulholland JA, Russell AG, Gass K, Strickland MJ, Tolbert PE. Characterization of ambient air pollution measurement error in a time-series health study using a geostatistical simulation approach. Atmos Environ. 2012;57:101–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Strickland MJ, Gass KM, Goldman GT, Mulholland JA. Effects of ambient air pollution measurement error on health effect estimates in time-series studies: a simulation-based analysis. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2013;25:160–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Dionisio KL, Baxter LK, Chang HH. An empirical assessment of exposure measurement error and effect attenuation in bipollutant epidemiologic models. Environ Health Perspect. 2014;122:1216–24.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Sheppard L, Slaughter JC, Schildcrout J, Liu JS, Lumley T. Exposure and measurement contributions to estimates of acute air pollution effects. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol. 2005;15:366–76.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Butland BK, Armstrong B, Atkinson RW, Wilkinson P, Heal MR, Doherty RM, et al. Measurement error in time-series analysis: a simulation study comparing modelled and monitored data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013;13:136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Alexeeff SE, Schwartz J, Kloog I, Chudnovsky A, Koutrakis P, Coull BA. Consequences of kriging and land use regression for PM2.5 predictions in epidemiologic analyses: insights into spatial variability using high-resolution satellite data. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2015;25:138–44.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Gryparis A, Paciorek CJ, Zeka A, Schwartz J, Coull BA. Measurement error caused by spatial misalignment in environmental epidemiology. Biostatistics. 2009;10:258–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Setton E, Marshall JD, Brauer M, Lundquist KR, Hystad P, Keller P, et al. The impact of daily mobility on exposure to traffic-related air pollution and health effect estimates. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2011;21:42–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Szpiro AA, Paciorek CJ. Measurement error in two-stage analyses, with application to air pollution epidemiology. Environmetrics. 2013;24:501–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bergen S, Sheppard L, Sampson PD, Kim SY, Richards M, Vedal S, et al. A national prediction model for PM2.5 component exposures and measurement error-corrected health effect inference. Environ Health Perspect. 2013;121:1017–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Bergen S, Szpiro AA. Mitigating the impact of measurement error when using penalized regression to model exposure in two-stage air pollution epidemiology studies. Environ Ecol Stat. 2015;22:601–31.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Cimorelli AJ, Perry SG, Venkatram A, Weil JC, Paine R, Wilson RB, et al. AERMOD: a dispersion model for industrial source applications. Part I: general model formulation and boundary layer characterization. J Appl Meteorol. 2005;44:682–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Cefalu M, Dominici F. Does exposure prediction bias health-effect estimation? The relationship between confounding adjustment and exposure prediction. Epidemiology. 2014;25:583–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Dr Kathie Dionisio, Dr Rebecca Nachman, Dr Andrew Hotchkiss, and Dr John Vandenberg for their insightful comments.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Thomas C. Long.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

The study was reviewed by the EPA-NCEA and approved for publication. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. Views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect EPA’s views or policies.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Richmond-Bryant, J., Long, T.C. Influence of exposure measurement errors on results from epidemiologic studies of different designs. J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol 30, 420–429 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41370-019-0164-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • Epidemiology
  • Exposure modeling
  • Criteria pollutants

Further reading

Search

Quick links