ArticleEnvironmental research2008
Validity of spatial models of arsenic concentrations in private well water.
Article in Environmental research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ambient UVR and Environmental Arsenic Exposure in Relation to Cutaneous Melanoma in Iowa.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Use of Principal Components Analysis and Kriging to Predict Groundwater-Sourced Rural Drinking Water Quality in Saskatchewan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017Article
- Local bladder cancer clusters in southeastern Michigan accounting for risk factors, covariates and residential mobility.PloS one · 2015Article
- Predicting arsenic concentrations in groundwater of San Luis Valley, Colorado: implications for individual-level lifetime exposure assessment.Environmental geochemistry and health · 2014Article
- Genetic variation in glutathione S-transferase omega-1, arsenic methyltransferase and methylene-tetrahydrofolate reductase, arsenic exposure and bladder cancer: a case-control study.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2012Article
- Spatial modeling for groundwater arsenic levels in North Carolina.Environmental science & technology · 2011Article
- Incorporating individual-level distributions of exposure error in epidemiologic analyses: an example using arsenic in drinking water and bladder cancer.Annals of epidemiology · 2010Article
- Lifetime exposure to arsenic in drinking water and bladder cancer: a population-based case-control study in Michigan, USA.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2010Article
- Water quality monitoring records for estimating tap water arsenic and nitrate: a validation study.Environmental health : a global access science source · 2010Article
- Spatial pattern of groundwater arsenic occurrence and association with bedrock geology in greater Augusta, Maine.Environmental science & technology · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveArsenic is a pervasive contaminant in underground aquifers worldwide, yet documentation of health effects associated with low-to-moderate concentrations (<100microg/L) has been stymied by uncertainties in assessing long-term exposure. A critical component of assessing exposure to arsenic in drinking water is the development of models for predicting arsenic concentrations in private well water in the past; however, these models are seldom validated. The objective of this paper is to validate alternative spatial models of arsenic concentrations in private well water in southeastern Michigan.
methodsFrom 1993 to 2002, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality analyzed arsenic concentrations in water from 6050 private wells. This dataset was used to develop several spatial models of arsenic concentrations in well water: proxy wells based on nearest-neighbor relationships, averages across geographic regions, and geostatistically derived estimates based on spatial correlation and geologic factors. Output from these models was validated using arsenic concentrations measured in 371 private wells from 2003 to 2006.
resultsThe geostatisical model and nearest-neighbor approach outperformed the models based on geographic averages. The geostatistical model produced the highest degree of correlation using continuous data (Pearson's r=0.61; Spearman's rank rho=0.46) while the nearest-neighbor approach produced the strongest correlation (kappa(weighted)=0.58) using an a priori categorization of arsenic concentrations (<5, 5-9.99, 10-19.99, > or = 20microg/L). When the maximum contaminant level was used as a cut-off in a two-category classification (<10, > or =10microg/L), the nearest-neighbor approach and geostatistical model had similar values for sensitivity (0.62-0.63), specificity (0.80), negative predictive value (0.85), positive predictive value (0.53), and percent agreement (75%). DISCUSSION: This validation study reveals that geostatistical modeling and nearest-neighbor approaches are effective spatial models for predicting arsenic concentrations in private well water. Further validation analyses in other regions are necessary to indicate how widely these findings may be generalized.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.