ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2026
Accounting for Exposure Measurement Error in Gridded Air Pollution Estimates in Assessing the Association of PM
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is increasing interest in addressing measurement error in gridded exposure estimates. Here, we provide a framework to account for exposure measurement error in gridded air pollution estimates used for health effects estimation, i.e., when numerical air quality models or satellite-derived data are the principal source of exposure data. We employed a two-stage Bayesian hierarchical modeling framework consisting of an exposure measurement error model and a health model, linking the unobserved true ambient exposure at the residential address for each participant in the cohort to health outcomes. In sensitivity analysis, we considered different health models, spatial smoothing parameters, and spatial resolutions (1.33 and 4 km grid cells) for observation-fused CMAQ output. In an example application, comparison of gridded observation-fused CMAQ estimates and spatially smoothed observation-fused CMAQ estimates by leave-one-out cross-validation at monitoring stations indicated that prediction accuracy at those locations is comparable between the 1.33 km resolution gridded estimates and the smoothed estimates, while the spatially smoothed estimates slightly outperform the 4 km resolution gridded estimates. Accounting for exposure measurement error also resulted in somewhat greater PM
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.