ArticleJournal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology2024
Local exposure misclassification in national models: relationships with urban infrastructure and demographics.
Article in Journal of exposure science & environmental epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Harnessing Geospatial Artificial Intelligence (GeoAI) for Environmental Epidemiology: A Narrative Review.Current environmental health reports · 2025Review
- Open Air Quality Data Platforms for Environmental Health Research and Action.Current environmental health reports · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNational-scale linear regression-based modeling may mischaracterize localized patterns, including hyperlocal peaks and neighborhood- to regional-scale gradients. For studies focused on within-city differences, this mischaracterization poses a risk of exposure misclassification, affecting epidemiological and environmental justice conclusions.
objectiveCharacterize the difference between intraurban pollution patterns predicted by national-scale land use regression modeling and observation-based estimates within a localized domain and examine the relationship between that difference and urban infrastructure and demographics.
methodsWe compare highly resolved (0.01 km
resultsWe find that observed local pollution extremes are not represented by land use regression predictions and that observed UFP count significantly exceeds regression predictions. Machine learning models show significant nonlinear relationships among localized differences between predictions and observations and the density of several types of pollution-related infrastructure (roadways, commercial and industrial operations). In addition, localized difference was greater in areas with higher population density and a lower share of white non-Hispanic residents, indicating that exposure misclassification by national models differs among subpopulations. IMPACT: Comparing national-scale pollution predictions with hyperlocal observations in the San Francisco Bay Area, we find greater discrepancies near major roadways and food service locations and systematic underestimation of concentrations in neighborhoods with a lower share of non-Hispanic white residents. These findings carry implications for using national-scale models in intraurban epidemiological and environmental justice applications and establish the potential utility of supplementing large-scale estimates with publicly available urban infrastructure and pollution source information.
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.