ArticleEnvironmental and ecological statistics2015
A model-based approach for imputing censored data in source apportionment studies.
Article in Environmental and ecological statistics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in Eutopic Endometrium Tissue and Risk of Endometriosis: Findings from the Investigating Mixtures of Pollutants and Endometriosis in Tissue (IMPLANT) Study.Environmental health perspectives · 2025Article
- Infinite hidden Markov models for multiple multivariate time series with missing data.Biometrics · 2023Article
- Recent Approaches to Estimate Associations Between Source-Specific Air Pollution and Health.Current environmental health reports · 2017Review
- Current Methods and Challenges for Epidemiological Studies of the Associations Between Chemical Constituents of Particulate Matter and Health.Current environmental health reports · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sources of particulate matter (PM) air pollution are generally inferred from PM chemical constituent concentrations using source apportionment models. Concentrations of PM constituents are often censored below minimum detection limits (MDL) and most source apportionment models cannot handle these censored data. Frequently, censored data are first substituted by a constant proportion of the MDL or are removed to create a truncated dataset before sources are estimated. When estimating the complete data distribution, these commonly applied methods to adjust censored data perform poorly compared with model-based imputation methods. Model-based imputation has not been used in source apportionment and may lead to better source estimation. However if the censored chemical constituents are not important for estimating sources, censoring adjustment methods may have little impact on source estimation. We focus on two source apportionment models applied in the literature and provide a comprehensive assessment of how censoring adjustment methods, including model-based imputation, impact source estimation. A review of censoring adjustment methods critically informs how censored data should be handled in these source apportionment models. In a simulation study, we demonstrated that model-based multiple imputation frequently leads to better source estimation compared with commonly used censoring adjustment methods. We estimated sources of PM in New York City and found estimated source distributions differed by censoring adjustment method. In this study, we provide guidance for adjusting censored PM constituent data in common source apportionment models, which is necessary for estimation of PM sources and their subsequent health effects.
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.