ArticleEnvironmental health insights2026
Benchmarking Spatial Interpolation Methods for Long-Term Meteorological Exposure Assessment in China: Comparing Inverse Distance Weighting and Ordinary Kriging in Climate-Health Research.
Article in Environmental health insights, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: High-resolution meteorological exposure assessment is essential for individual-level environmental epidemiology. However, clear methodological guidance on the optimal spatial interpolation technique for daily meteorological variables at the national scale remains limited. Methods: Using daily observations from 2417 national meteorological stations across mainland China from 2010 to 2021, we systematically benchmarked 2 widely used spatial interpolation methods-Inverse Distance Weighting (IDW) and Ordinary Kriging (OK). Twelve representative days capturing seasonal variability were selected, and 10-fold cross-validation was conducted. Interpolation performance was evaluated using root mean squared error (RMSE), standardized mean absolute percentage error (sMAPE), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), bias, and computation time. Results: Across 12 representative days from 2010 to 2021, IDW consistently outperformed OK in national-scale 10-fold cross-validation. For daily mean temperature, IDW achieved lower prediction errors, with RMSE ranging from 1.52°C to 1.75°C, compared with 1.50°C to 1.81°C for OK, and consistently higher NSE values (0.83-0.97 vs 0.82-0.97). Similar performance advantages were observed for relative humidity. Bias estimates were close to zero for both methods, indicating minimal systematic error. In addition, IDW showed modest computational advantages, with average processing times of approximately 96 s/day, compared with approximately 99 s/day for OK, supporting its suitability for large-scale meteorological exposure reconstruction in epidemiological studies. Conclusions: From an epidemiological exposure assessment perspective, IDW provides a favorable balance between accuracy, computational efficiency, and preservation of spatial variability. These findings offer practical methodological guidance for large-scale individual-level meteorological exposure modeling in climate-health research.
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.