Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41848185›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of epidemiology2026

Bringing spatial confounding into the causal inferential fold.

Alexander P Keil, Maria E Kamenetsky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in American 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Alexander P KeilOccupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Bethesda, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0955-6107
Maria E KamenetskyOccupational and Environmental Epidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), Bethesda, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5401-7786

Funding

Cancer Risk and Environmental ExposuresZIACP010125 · NCI · DIVISION OF CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY AND GENETICS · PI PURDUE, MARK · 2009 to 2025
$41.3M
Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999Intramural NIH HHS ZIA CP010125
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Spatial patterning of environmental hazards often leads to concerns about spatial confounding: that the exposures we study share similar spatial distributions with other causes of disease. Recent efforts to address spatial confounding have approached it using clever specification of spatial models, or models that adjust for aspects of spatial location itself. In the article by Li et al. (Am J Epidemiol. 2025; kwaf248), the authors describe and demonstrate several models for addressing spatial confounding for binary exposures. These important results demonstrate an aspect of environmental exposures that should concern all environmental epidemiologists: inadequate adjustment for spatial confounding can increase, rather than decrease, bias from spatial confounding. In this commentary, we disagree with some terminology and enthusiastically agree with the importance of the problem and the utility of the approaches described by these authors. Causal inference in environmental epidemiology is fraught with many challenges, and Li et al. give hope for progress on one of the lesser understood, yet potentially ubiquitous, problems: spatial confounding.

Indexed as

CausalityEnvironmental ExposureSpatial AnalysisConfounding Factors, EpidemiologicHumanscausalityspatial analysis

Identifiers

PMID41848185
PMCPMC13064441

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.