Dataset Information

Quantifying the short-term effects of air pollution on health in the presence of exposure measurement error: a simulation study of multi-pollutant model results.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Most epidemiological studies estimate associations without considering exposure measurement error. While some studies have estimated the impact of error in single-exposure models we aimed to quantify the effect of measurement error in multi-exposure models, specifically in time-series analysis of PM_2.5, NO₂, and mortality using simulations, under various plausible scenarios for exposure errors. Measurement error in multi-exposure models can lead to effect transfer where the effect estimate is overestimated for the pollutant estimated with more error to the one estimated with less error. This complicates interpretation of the independent effects of different pollutants and thus the relative importance of reducing their concentrations in air pollution policy.

Methods

Measurement error was defined as the difference between ambient concentrations and personal exposure from outdoor sources. Simulation inputs for error magnitude and variability were informed by the literature. Error-free exposures with their consequent health outcome and error-prone exposures of various error types (classical/Berkson) were generated. Bias was quantified as the relative difference in effect estimates of the error-free and error-prone exposures.

Results

Mortality effect estimates were generally underestimated with greater bias observed when low ratios of the true exposure variance over the error variance were assumed (27.4% underestimation for NO₂). Higher ratios resulted in smaller, but still substantial bias (up to 19% for both pollutants). Effect transfer was observed indicating that less precise measurements for one pollutant (NO₂) yield more bias, while the co-pollutant (PM_2.5) associations were found closer to the true. Interestingly, the sum of single-pollutant model effect estimates was found closer to the summed true associations than those from multi-pollutant models, due to cancelling out of confounding and measurement error bias.

Conclusions

Our simulation study indicated an underestimation of true independent health effects of multiple exposures due to measurement error. Using error parameter information in future epidemiological studies should provide more accurate concentration-response functions.

SUBMITTER: Evangelopoulos D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8385952 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Spatiotemporal air pollution models are increasingly being used to estimate health effects in epidemiological studies. Although such exposure prediction models typically result in improved spatial and temporal resolution of air pollution predictions, they remain subject to shared measurement error, a type of measurement error common in spatiotemporal exposure models which occurs when measurement error is not independent of exposures. A fundamental challenge of exposure measurement error in air pollution assessment is the strong correlation and sometimes identical (shared) error of exposure estimates across geographic space and time. When exposure estimates with shared measurement error are used to estimate health risk in epidemiological analyses, complex errors are potentially introduced, resulting in biased epidemiological conclusions. We demonstrate the influence of using a three-stage spatiotemporal exposure prediction model and introduce formal methods of shared, multiplicative measurement error (SMME) correction of epidemiological health risk estimates. Using our three-stage, ensemble learning based nitrogen oxides (NOx) exposure prediction model, we quantified SMME. We conducted an epidemiological analysis of wheeze risk in relation to NOx exposure among school-aged children. To demonstrate the incremental influence of exposure modeling stage, we iteratively estimated the health risk using assigned exposure predictions from each stage of the NOx model. We then determined the impact of SMME on the variance of the health risk estimates under various scenarios. Depending on the stage of the spatiotemporal exposure model used, we found that wheeze odds ratio ranged from 1.16 to 1.28 for an interquartile range increase in NOx. With each additional stage of exposure modeling, the health effect estimate moved further away from the null (OR=1). When corrected for observed SMME, the health effects confidence intervals slightly lengthened, but our epidemiological conclusions were not altered. When the variance estimate was corrected for the potential "worst case scenario" of SMME, the standard error further increased, having a meaningful influence on epidemiological conclusions. Our framework can be expanded and used to understand the implications of using exposure predictions subject to shared measurement error in future health investigations.

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.

Project description:BackgroundSpatio-temporal models are increasingly being used to predict exposure to ambient outdoor air pollution at high spatial resolution for inclusion in epidemiological analyses of air pollution and health. Measurement error in these predictions can nevertheless have impacts on health effect estimation. Using statistical simulation we aim to investigate the effects of such error within a multi-level model analysis of long and short-term pollutant exposure and health.MethodsOur study was based on a theoretical sample of 1000 geographical sites within Greater London. Simulations of "true" site-specific daily mean and 5-year mean NO2 and PM10 concentrations, incorporating both temporal variation and spatial covariance, were informed by an analysis of daily measurements over the period 2009-2013 from fixed location urban background monitors in the London area. In the context of a multi-level single-pollutant Poisson regression analysis of mortality, we investigated scenarios in which we specified: the Pearson correlation between modelled and "true" data and the ratio of their variances (model versus "true") and assumed these parameters were the same spatially and temporally.ResultsIn general, health effect estimates associated with both long and short-term exposure were biased towards the null with the level of bias increasing to over 60% as the correlation coefficient decreased from 0.9 to 0.5 and the variance ratio increased from 0.5 to 2. However, for a combination of high correlation (0.9) and small variance ratio (0.5) non-trivial bias (> 25%) away from the null was observed. Standard errors of health effect estimates, though unaffected by changes in the correlation coefficient, appeared to be attenuated for variance ratios > 1 but inflated for variance ratios < 1.ConclusionWhile our findings suggest that in most cases modelling errors result in attenuation of the effect estimate towards the null, in some situations a non-trivial bias away from the null may occur. The magnitude and direction of bias appears to depend on the relationship between modelled and "true" data in terms of their correlation and the ratio of their variances. These factors should be taken into account when assessing the validity of modelled air pollution predictions for use in complex epidemiological models.