ArticleToxics2019
A Model-to-Monitor Evaluation of 2011 National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA).
Article in Toxics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Evidence of susceptibility to autism risks associated with early life ambient air pollution: A systematic review.Environmental research · 2022Pooled it
- Ambient Trichloroethylene Exposure and Parkinson Disease Risk in Medicare Beneficiaries.Neurology · 2025Article
- Total cancer risk estimates from measured concentrations of volatile organic compounds in industrialized southeastern Louisiana.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Environmental Inequality in Estimated Cancer Risk from Airborne Toxic Exposure across United States Communities from 2011 to 2019.Environmental science & technology · 2024Article
- Ambient NOEnvironmental science & technology letters · 2023Article
- Bayesian G-Computation for Estimating Impacts of Interventions on Exposure Mixtures: Demonstration With Metals From Coal-Fired Power Plants and Birth Weight.American journal of epidemiology · 2021Observational
- Machine learning-driven identification of early-life air toxic combinations associated with childhood asthma outcomes.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2021Article
- Observational Study of the Association between Air Cadmium Exposure and Prostate Cancer Aggressiveness at Diagnosis among a Nationwide Retrospective Cohort of 230,540 Patients in the United States.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Observational
- Validity of self-reported concentration and memory problems: Relationship with neuropsychological assessment and depression.Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology · 2017Article
- Revisiting Nonresidential Environmental Exposures and Childhood Lead Poisoning in the US: Findings from Kansas, 2000-2005.Journal of environmental and public health · 2016Article
- Medication use associated with exposure to manganese in two Ohio towns.International journal of environmental health researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Environmental research has widely utilized the ambient concentrations of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) modeled by the National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) program; however, limited studies have evaluated the model's performance. This study aims to evaluate the model-to-monitor agreement of the 2011 NATA data with the monitoring data reported to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Air Quality System (AQS). Concentrations of 27 representative HAPs measured at 274 sites in the U.S. in 2011 were merged with NATA data by census tract. The comparison consisted of two steps for each HAP: first, the model-monitor difference at each site was compared with the limit of quantitation (LOQ); second, the modeled annual average was compared to the 95% confidence interval of the monitored annual average. Nationally, NATA could predict national medians of most HAPs well; however, it was unable to capture high concentrations. At individual sites, a large portion of model-monitor differences was below the LOQs, indicating they were unquantifiable. Model-to-monitor agreement displayed inconsistent patterns in terms of chemical groups or EPA regions and was strongly impacted by the comparison methods. The substantial non-agreements of NATA predictions with monitoring data require caution in environmental epidemiology and justice studies that are based on NATA data.
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.