Dataset Information

Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology.

ABSTRACT: Although environmental epidemiology studies often rely on geocoding procedures in the process of assigning spatial exposure estimates, geocoding methods are not commonly reported, nor are consequent errors in exposure assignment explored. Geocoding methods differ in accuracy, however, and, given the increasing refinement of available exposure models for air pollution and other exposures, geocoding error may account for an increasingly larger proportion of exposure misclassification. We used residential addresses from a reasonably large, dense dataset of asthma emergency department visits from all New York City hospitals (n = 21,183; 26.9 addresses/km2), and geocoded each using three methods (Address Point, Street Segment, Parcel Centroid). We compared missingness and spatial patterning therein, quantified distance and directional errors, and quantified impacts on pollution exposure estimates and assignment to Census areas for sociodemographic characterization. Parcel Centroids had the highest overall missingness rate (38.1%, Address Point = 9.6%, Street Segment = 6.1%), and spatial clustering in missingness was significant for all methods, though its spatial patterns differed. Street Segment geocodes had the largest mean distance error (µ = 29.2 (SD = 26.2) m; vs. µ = 15.9 (SD = 17.7) m for Parcel Centroids), and the strongest spatial patterns therein. We found substantial over- and under-estimation of pollution exposures, with greater error for higher pollutant concentrations, but minimal impact on Census area assignment. Finally, we developed surfaces of spatial patterns in errors in order to identify locations in the study area where exposures may be over-/under-estimated. Our observations provide insights towards refining geocoding methods for epidemiology, and suggest methods for quantifying and interpreting geocoding error with respect to exposure misclassification, towards understanding potential impacts on health effect estimates.

SUBMITTER: Kinnee EJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7459468 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology.

Kinnee Ellen J EJ Tripathy Sheila S Schinasi Leah L Shmool Jessie L C JLC Sheffield Perry E PE Holguin Fernando F Clougherty Jane E JE

International journal of environmental research and public health 20200812 16

Although environmental epidemiology studies often rely on geocoding procedures in the process of assigning spatial exposure estimates, geocoding methods are not commonly reported, nor are consequent errors in exposure assignment explored. Geocoding methods differ in accuracy, however, and, given the increasing refinement of available exposure models for air pollution and other exposures, geocoding error may account for an increasingly larger proportion of exposure misclassification. We used resi ...[more]

PMID: 32806682

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The increasing prevalence of obesity is a major public health problem in many countries. Built environment factors are known to be associated with obesity, which is an important risk factor for type 2 diabetes. Online geocoding services could be used to identify regions with a high concentration of obesogenic factors. The aim of our study was to examine the feasibility of integrating information from online geocoding services for the assessment of obesogenic environments. METHODS:We identified environmental factors associated with obesity from the literature and translated these factors into variables from the online geocoding services Google Maps and OpenStreetMap (OSM). We tested whether spatial data points can be downloaded from these services and processed and visualized on maps. True- and false-positive values, false-negative values, sensitivities and positive predictive values of the processed data were determined using search engines and in-field inspections within four pilot areas in Bavaria, Germany. RESULTS:Several environmental factors could be identified from the literature that were either positively or negatively correlated with weight outcomes in previous studies. The diversity of query variables was higher in OSM compared with Google Maps. In each pilot area, query results from Google showed a higher absolute number of true-positive hits and of false-positive hits, but a lower number of false-negative hits during the validation process. The positive predictive value of database hits was higher in OSM and ranged between 81 and 100% compared with a range of 63-89% for Google Maps. In contrast, sensitivities were higher in Google Maps (between 59 and 98%) than in OSM (between 20 and 64%). CONCLUSIONS:It was possible to operationalize obesogenic factors identified from the literature with data and variables available from geocoding services. The validity of Google Maps and OSM was reasonable. The assessment of environmental obesogenic factors via geocoding services could potentially be applied in diabetes surveillance.

Project description:Environmental exposure assessment based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and study participants' residential proximity to environmental exposure sources relies on the positional accuracy of subjects' residences to avoid misclassification bias. Our study compared the positional accuracy of two automatic geocoding methods to a manual reference method.We geocoded 4,247 address records representing the residential history (1990-2008) of 1,685 women from the French national E3N cohort living in the Rhône-Alpes region. We compared two automatic geocoding methods, a free-online geocoding service (method A) and an in-house geocoder (method B), to a reference layer created by manually relocating addresses from method A (method R). For each automatic geocoding method, positional accuracy levels were compared according to the urban/rural status of addresses and time-periods (1990-2000, 2001-2008), using Chi Square tests. Kappa statistics were performed to assess agreement of positional accuracy of both methods A and B with the reference method, overall, by time-periods and by urban/rural status of addresses.Respectively 81.4% and 84.4% of addresses were geocoded to the exact address (65.1% and 61.4%) or to the street segment (16.3% and 23.0%) with methods A and B. In the reference layer, geocoding accuracy was higher in urban areas compared to rural areas (74.4% vs. 10.5% addresses geocoded to the address or interpolated address level, p < 0.0001); no difference was observed according to the period of residence. Compared to the reference method, median positional errors were 0.0 m (IQR = 0.0-37.2 m) and 26.5 m (8.0-134.8 m), with positional errors <100 m for 82.5% and 71.3% of addresses, for method A and method B respectively. Positional agreement of method A and method B with method R was 'substantial' for both methods, with kappa coefficients of 0.60 and 0.61 for methods A and B, respectively.Our study demonstrates the feasibility of geocoding residential addresses in epidemiological studies not initially recorded for environmental exposure assessment, for both recent addresses and residence locations more than 20 years ago. Accuracy of the two automatic geocoding methods was comparable. The in-house method (B) allowed a better control of the geocoding process and was less time consuming.

Project description:BackgroundTwo distinctly different types of measurement error are Berkson and classical. Impacts of measurement error in epidemiologic studies of ambient air pollution are expected to depend on error type. We characterize measurement error due to instrument imprecision and spatial variability as multiplicative (i.e. additive on the log scale) and model it over a range of error types to assess impacts on risk ratio estimates both on a per measurement unit basis and on a per interquartile range (IQR) basis in a time-series study in Atlanta.MethodsDaily measures of twelve ambient air pollutants were analyzed: NO2, NOx, O3, SO2, CO, PM10 mass, PM2.5 mass, and PM2.5 components sulfate, nitrate, ammonium, elemental carbon and organic carbon. Semivariogram analysis was applied to assess spatial variability. Error due to this spatial variability was added to a reference pollutant time-series on the log scale using Monte Carlo simulations. Each of these time-series was exponentiated and introduced to a Poisson generalized linear model of cardiovascular disease emergency department visits.ResultsMeasurement error resulted in reduced statistical significance for the risk ratio estimates for all amounts (corresponding to different pollutants) and types of error. When modelled as classical-type error, risk ratios were attenuated, particularly for primary air pollutants, with average attenuation in risk ratios on a per unit of measurement basis ranging from 18% to 92% and on an IQR basis ranging from 18% to 86%. When modelled as Berkson-type error, risk ratios per unit of measurement were biased away from the null hypothesis by 2% to 31%, whereas risk ratios per IQR were attenuated (i.e. biased toward the null) by 5% to 34%. For CO modelled error amount, a range of error types were simulated and effects on risk ratio bias and significance were observed.ConclusionsFor multiplicative error, both the amount and type of measurement error impact health effect estimates in air pollution epidemiology. By modelling instrument imprecision and spatial variability as different error types, we estimate direction and magnitude of the effects of error over a range of error types.

Dataset Information

Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology.

Publications

Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets