Sun-Young Kim1, Lianne Sheppard, Ho Kim. 1. Departments of aEnvironmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98105, USA. puha0@u.washington.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Air pollution studies increasingly estimate individual-level exposures from area-based measurements by using exposure prediction methods such as nearest-monitor and kriging predictions. However, little is known about the properties of these methods for health effects estimation. This simulation study explores how 2 common prediction approaches for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) affect relative risk estimates for cardiovascular events in a single geographic area. METHODS: We estimated 2 sets of parameters to define correlation structures from 2002 data on PM2.5 in the Los Angeles area, and selected additional parameters to evaluate various correlation features. For each structure, annual average PM2.5 was generated at 22 monitoring sites and 2000 preselected individual locations in Los Angeles. Associated survival time until cardiovascular event was simulated for 10,000 hypothetical subjects. Using PM2.5 generated at monitoring sites, we predicted PM2.5 at subject locations by nearest-monitor and kriging interpolation. Finally, we estimated relative risks of the effect of PM2.5 on time to cardiovascular event. RESULTS: Health effect estimates for cardiovascular events had higher or similar coverage probability for kriging compared with nearest-monitor exposures. The lower mean square error of nearest monitor prediction resulted from more precise but biased health effect estimates. The difference between these approaches dramatically moderated when spatial correlation increased and geographic characteristics were included in the mean model. CONCLUSIONS: When the underlying exposure distribution has a large amount of spatial dependence, both kriging and nearest-monitor predictions gave good health effect estimates. For exposure with little spatial dependence, kriging exposure was preferable but gave very uncertain estimates.
BACKGROUND: Air pollution studies increasingly estimate individual-level exposures from area-based measurements by using exposure prediction methods such as nearest-monitor and kriging predictions. However, little is known about the properties of these methods for health effects estimation. This simulation study explores how 2 common prediction approaches for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) affect relative risk estimates for cardiovascular events in a single geographic area. METHODS: We estimated 2 sets of parameters to define correlation structures from 2002 data on PM2.5 in the Los Angeles area, and selected additional parameters to evaluate various correlation features. For each structure, annual average PM2.5 was generated at 22 monitoring sites and 2000 preselected individual locations in Los Angeles. Associated survival time until cardiovascular event was simulated for 10,000 hypothetical subjects. Using PM2.5 generated at monitoring sites, we predicted PM2.5 at subject locations by nearest-monitor and kriging interpolation. Finally, we estimated relative risks of the effect of PM2.5 on time to cardiovascular event. RESULTS: Health effect estimates for cardiovascular events had higher or similar coverage probability for kriging compared with nearest-monitor exposures. The lower mean square error of nearest monitor prediction resulted from more precise but biased health effect estimates. The difference between these approaches dramatically moderated when spatial correlation increased and geographic characteristics were included in the mean model. CONCLUSIONS: When the underlying exposure distribution has a large amount of spatial dependence, both kriging and nearest-monitor predictions gave good health effect estimates. For exposure with little spatial dependence, kriging exposure was preferable but gave very uncertain estimates.
Authors: Lianne Sheppard; Richard T Burnett; Adam A Szpiro; Sun-Young Kim; Michael Jerrett; C Arden Pope; Bert Brunekreef Journal: Air Qual Atmos Health Date: 2011-03-23 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: Jaime E Hart; Eric Garshick; Douglas W Dockery; Thomas J Smith; Louise Ryan; Francine Laden Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-07-23 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Michael T Young; Matthew J Bechle; Paul D Sampson; Adam A Szpiro; Julian D Marshall; Lianne Sheppard; Joel D Kaufman Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2016-03-21 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Paul D Sampson; Mark Richards; Adam A Szpiro; Silas Bergen; Lianne Sheppard; Timothy V Larson; Joel D Kaufman Journal: Atmos Environ (1994) Date: 2013-08-01 Impact factor: 4.798
Authors: Joel D Kaufman; Elizabeth W Spalt; Cynthia L Curl; Anjum Hajat; Miranda R Jones; Sun-Young Kim; Sverre Vedal; Adam A Szpiro; Amanda Gassett; Lianne Sheppard; Martha L Daviglus; Sara D Adar Journal: Glob Heart Date: 2016-09
Authors: Victor C Van Hee; Sara D Adar; Adam A Szpiro; R Graham Barr; Ana Diez Roux; David A Bluemke; Lianne Sheppard; Edward A Gill; Hossein Bahrami; Christina Wassel; Michele M Sale; David S Siscovick; Jerome I Rotter; Stephen S Rich; Joel D Kaufman Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2010-03-22 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Natasha Hodas; Barbara J Turpin; Melissa M Lunden; Lisa K Baxter; Halûk Özkaynak; Janet Burke; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Kelly Thevenet-Morrison; John B Kostis; David Q Rich Journal: J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 5.563