ArticleBiostatistics (Oxford, England)2025
Bipartite interference and air pollution transport: estimating health effects of power plant interventions.
Article in Biostatistics (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Robust Statistical Approaches to Understanding the Causal Effect of Air Pollution Mixtures.Research report (Health Effects Institute) · 2025Article
- CAUSAL HEALTH IMPACTS OF POWER PLANT EMISSION CONTROLS UNDER MODELED AND UNCERTAIN PHYSICAL PROCESS INTERFERENCE.The annals of applied statistics · 2024Article
- Unraveling complex causal processes that affect sustainability requires more integration between empirical and modeling approaches.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Methods for Assessing Spillover in Network-Based Studies of HIV/AIDS Prevention among People Who Use Drugs.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A Mechanistic Model of Annual Sulfate Concentrations in the United States.Journal of the American Statistical Association · 2022Article
- A Review of Spatial Causal Inference Methods for Environmental and Epidemiological Applications.International statistical review = Revue internationale de statistique · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Evaluating air quality interventions is confronted with the challenge of interference since interventions at a particular pollution source likely impact air quality and health at distant locations, and air quality and health at any given location are likely impacted by interventions at many sources. The structure of interference in this context is dictated by complex atmospheric processes governing how pollution emitted from a particular source is transformed and transported across space and can be cast with a bipartite structure reflecting the two distinct types of units: (i) interventional units on which treatments are applied or withheld to change pollution emissions; and (ii) outcome units on which outcomes of primary interest are measured. We propose new estimands for bipartite causal inference with interference that construe two components of treatment: a "key-associated" (or "individual") treatment and an "upwind" (or "neighborhood") treatment. Estimation is carried out using a covariate adjustment approach based on a joint propensity score. A reduced-complexity atmospheric model characterizes the structure of the interference network by modeling the movement of air parcels through time and space. The new methods are deployed to evaluate the effectiveness of installing flue-gas desulfurization scrubbers on 472 coal-burning power plants (the interventional units) in reducing Medicare hospitalizations among 21,577,552 Medicare beneficiaries residing across 25,553 ZIP codes in the United States (the outcome units).
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.