Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38241418›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Understanding the bias of mobile location data across spatial scales and over time: A comprehensive analysis of SafeGraph data in the United States.

Zhenlong Li, Huan Ning, Fengrui Jing, M Naser Lessani

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Measuring "third places": Comparing neighborhood data for cognitive health research.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Zhenlong LiGeoinformation and Big Data Research Laboratory, Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-8938-5466
Huan NingGeoinformation and Big Data Research Laboratory, Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Fengrui JingGeoinformation and Big Data Research Laboratory, Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
M Naser LessaniGeoinformation and Big Data Research Laboratory, Department of Geography, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-8657-3798

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mobile location data has emerged as a valuable data source for studying human mobility patterns in various contexts, including virus spreading, urban planning, and hazard evacuation. However, these data are often anonymized overviews derived from a panel of traced mobile devices, and the representativeness of these panels is not well documented. Without a clear understanding of the data representativeness, the interpretations of research based on mobile location data may be questionable. This article presents a comprehensive examination of the potential biases associated with mobile location data using SafeGraph Patterns data in the United States as a case study. The research rigorously scrutinizes and documents the bias from multiple dimensions, including spatial, temporal, urbanization, demographic, and socioeconomic, over a five-year period from 2018 to 2022 across diverse geographic levels, including state, county, census tract, and census block group. Our analysis of the SafeGraph Patterns dataset revealed an average sampling rate of 7.5% with notable temporal dynamics, geographic disparities, and urban-rural differences. The number of sampled devices was strongly correlated with the census population at the county level over the five years for both urban (r > 0.97) and rural counties (r > 0.91), but less so at the census tract and block group levels. We observed minor sampling biases among groups such as gender, age, and moderate-income, with biases typically ranging from -0.05 to +0.05. However, minority groups such as Hispanic populations, low-income households, and individuals with low levels of education generally exhibited higher levels of underrepresentation bias that varied over space, time, urbanization, and across geographic levels. These findings provide important insights for future studies that utilize SafeGraph data or other mobile location datasets, highlighting the need to thoroughly evaluate the spatiotemporal dynamics of the bias across spatial scales when employing such data sources.

Indexed as

IncomeUrbanizationBiasHumansPopulation DynamicsRural PopulationUnited States

Identifiers

PMID38241418
PMCPMC10798630

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.