Joshua P Keller1, Howard H Chang, Matthew J Strickland, Adam A Szpiro. 1. From the aDepartment of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA; bDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA; and cSchool of Community Health Sciences, University of Nevada Reno, Reno, NV.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Air pollution cohort studies are frequently analyzed in two stages, first modeling exposure then using predicted exposures to estimate health effects in a second regression model. The difference between predicted and unobserved true exposures introduces a form of measurement error in the second stage health model. Recent methods for spatial data correct for measurement error with a bootstrap and by requiring the study design ensure spatial compatibility, that is, monitor and subject locations are drawn from the same spatial distribution. These methods have not previously been applied to spatiotemporal exposure data. METHODS: We analyzed the association between fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and birth weight in the US state of Georgia using records with estimated date of conception during 2002-2005 (n = 403,881). We predicted trimester-specific PM2.5 exposure using a complex spatiotemporal exposure model. To improve spatial compatibility, we restricted to mothers residing in counties with a PM2.5 monitor (n = 180,440). We accounted for additional measurement error via a nonparametric bootstrap. RESULTS: Third trimester PM2.5 exposure was associated with lower birth weight in the uncorrected (-2.4 g per 1 μg/m difference in exposure; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.9, -0.8) and bootstrap-corrected (-2.5 g, 95% CI: -4.2, -0.8) analyses. Results for the unrestricted analysis were attenuated (-0.66 g, 95% CI: -1.7, 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a novel application of measurement error correction for spatiotemporal air pollution exposures. Our results demonstrate the importance of spatial compatibility between monitor and subject locations and provide evidence of the association between air pollution exposure and birth weight.
BACKGROUND: Air pollution cohort studies are frequently analyzed in two stages, first modeling exposure then using predicted exposures to estimate health effects in a second regression model. The difference between predicted and unobserved true exposures introduces a form of measurement error in the second stage health model. Recent methods for spatial data correct for measurement error with a bootstrap and by requiring the study design ensure spatial compatibility, that is, monitor and subject locations are drawn from the same spatial distribution. These methods have not previously been applied to spatiotemporal exposure data. METHODS: We analyzed the association between fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and birth weight in the US state of Georgia using records with estimated date of conception during 2002-2005 (n = 403,881). We predicted trimester-specific PM2.5 exposure using a complex spatiotemporal exposure model. To improve spatial compatibility, we restricted to mothers residing in counties with a PM2.5 monitor (n = 180,440). We accounted for additional measurement error via a nonparametric bootstrap. RESULTS: Third trimester PM2.5 exposure was associated with lower birth weight in the uncorrected (-2.4 g per 1 μg/m difference in exposure; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -3.9, -0.8) and bootstrap-corrected (-2.5 g, 95% CI: -4.2, -0.8) analyses. Results for the unrestricted analysis were attenuated (-0.66 g, 95% CI: -1.7, 0.35). CONCLUSIONS: This study presents a novel application of measurement error correction for spatiotemporal air pollution exposures. Our results demonstrate the importance of spatial compatibility between monitor and subject locations and provide evidence of the association between air pollution exposure and birth weight.
Authors: Adam A Szpiro; Paul D Sampson; Lianne Sheppard; Thomas Lumley; Sara D Adar; Joel Kaufman Journal: Environmetrics Date: 2009-09-01 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Lyndsey A Darrow; Mitchel Klein; Matthew J Strickland; James A Mulholland; Paige E Tolbert Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2010-12-14 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Nancy L Fleischer; Mario Merialdi; Aaron van Donkelaar; Felipe Vadillo-Ortega; Randall V Martin; Ana Pilar Betran; João Paulo Souza Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2014-02-07 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Hua Hao; Howard H Chang; Heather A Holmes; James A Mulholland; Mitch Klein; Lyndsey A Darrow; Matthew J Strickland Journal: Environ Health Perspect Date: 2015-10-20 Impact factor: 9.031
Authors: Mariam S Girguis; Lianfa Li; Fred Lurmann; Jun Wu; Carrie Breton; Frank Gilliland; Daniel Stram; Rima Habre Journal: Air Qual Atmos Health Date: 2020-05-15 Impact factor: 3.763
Authors: Morgan C Levy; Philip A Collender; Elizabeth J Carlton; Howard H Chang; Matthew J Strickland; Joseph N S Eisenberg; Justin V Remais Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2019-05-01 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Sheena E Martenies; Joshua P Keller; Sherry WeMott; Grace Kuiper; Zev Ross; William B Allshouse; John L Adgate; Anne P Starling; Dana Dabelea; Sheryl Magzamen Journal: Environ Sci Technol Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 9.028
Authors: Inyang Uwak; Natalie Olson; Angelica Fuentes; Megan Moriarty; Jairus Pulczinski; Juleen Lam; Xiaohui Xu; Brandie D Taylor; Samuel Taiwo; Kirsten Koehler; Margaret Foster; Weihsueh A Chiu; Natalie M Johnson Journal: Environ Int Date: 2021-01-25 Impact factor: 9.621
Authors: Marion Ouidir; Emie Seyve; Emmanuel Rivière; Julien Bernard; Marie Cheminat; Jérôme Cortinovis; François Ducroz; Fabrice Dugay; Agnès Hulin; Itai Kloog; Anne Laborie; Ludivine Launay; Laure Malherbe; Pierre-Yves Robic; Joel Schwartz; Valérie Siroux; Jonathan Virga; Cécile Zaros; Marie-Aline Charles; Rémy Slama; Johanna Lepeule Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-05-28 Impact factor: 3.390