ArticlePeerJ2022
Measurement of dispersion of PM 2.5 in Thailand using confidence intervals for the coefficient of variation of an inverse Gaussian distribution.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Air pollution is a growing concern for the general public in Thailand with PM 2.5 (particulate matter ≤ 2.5 µm) having the greatest impact on health. The inverse Gaussian (IG) distribution is used for examining the frequency of high concentration events and has often been applied to analyze pollution data, with the coefficient of variation (CV) being used to calculate the quantitative difference in PM 2.5 concentrations. Herein, we propose confidence intervals for the CV of an IG distribution based on the generalized confidence interval (GCI), the adjusted generalized confidence interval (AGCI), the bootstrap percentile confidence interval (BPCI), the fiducial confidence interval (FCI), and the fiducial highest posterior density confidence interval (F-HPDCI). The performance of the proposed confidence intervals was evaluated by using their coverage probabilities and average lengths from various scenarios via Monte Carlo simulations. The simulation results indicate that the coverage probabilities of the AGCI and FCI methods were higher than or close to the nominal level in all of test case scenarios. Moreover, FCI outperformed the others for small sample sizes by achieving the shortest average length. The efficacies of the confidence intervals were demonstrated by using PM 2.5 data from the Din Daeng and Bang Khun Thian districts in Bangkok, Thailand.
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.