ArticleInternational journal of epidemiology2026
Exposure measurement error in air-pollution epidemiology and its determinants: results from the MELONS study.
Article in International journal of epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionIn air-pollution epidemiology, measured or modelled surrogate exposure estimates, prone to measurement error (ME), are used to investigate the health effects of exposure to pollution of outdoor origin, potentially leading to biased effect estimates. We predicted the annual personal exposure from outdoor sources by using personal measurements, compared it with concentrations from surrogate metrics, and quantified the ME magnitude, type, and determinants.
methodsWe used measurements from four panel studies in London, UK, and predicted personal exposures to fine particulate matter (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), and black carbon (BC). We compared those with surrogate exposures, including measurements from fixed-site monitors, modelled ambient concentrations, or hybrid methods accounting for people's mobility. We estimated the exposure ME magnitude, correlations, and variance ratios between surrogate measures and personal exposure, and the percentages of classical/Berkson-type errors. Individual- and area-level characteristics, such as age, sex, socio-economic status, and time spent outdoors, were assessed as potential error determinants.
resultsPredicted annual personal exposures to PM2.5, NO2, O3, and BC from outdoor sources were overestimated by surrogate metrics, with mean differences of up to 10.1, 40.0, 61.7, and 2.6 μg/m3, respectively. The variance ratios and Pearson correlation coefficients between surrogate and predicted personal exposures ranged from 0.03 to 165.02 and -0.24 to 0.25. Time-activity adjustment reduced errors substantially. Berkson-type errors dominated the ME for PM2.5 and BC (43%-81% and 26%-98%, respectively), whilst classical errors characterized gases (>94% for both NO2 and O3). Time spent outdoors, house type, and deprivation were associated with exposure error.
conclusionThe use of surrogate exposures to investigate the health effects of long-term exposure to air pollution from outdoor sources may bias the epidemiological estimates due to ME. Information about the error structures and their determinants can be used for correction and the identification of the true exposure-response functions.
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.