Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 733

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An ensemble-based model of PM2.5 concentration across the contiguous United States with high spatiotemporal resolution

Open access
Di, Qian, Amini, Heresh, Shi, Liuhua, Kloog, Itai, Silvern, Rachel, Kelly, James, Sabath, M. Benjamin, Choirat, Christine, Koutrakis, Petros, Lyapustin, Alexei, Wang, Yujie, Mickley, Loretta J., Schwartz, Joel·2019·Environment International

Abstract

Various approaches have been proposed to model PM 2.5 in the recent decade, with satellite-derived aerosol optical depth, land-use variables, chemical transport model predictions, and several meteorological variables as major predictor variables. Our study used an ensemble model that integrated multiple machine learning algorithms and predictor variables to estimate daily PM 2.5 at a resolution of 1 km × 1 km across the contiguous United States. We used a generalized additive model that accounted for geographic difference to combine PM 2.5 estimates from neural network, random forest, and gradient boosting. The three machine learning algorithms were based on multiple predictor variables, including satellite data, meteorological variables, land-use variables, elevation, chemical transport model predictions, several reanalysis datasets, and others. The model training results from 2000 to 2015 indicated good model performance with a 10-fold cross-validated R 2 of 0.86 for daily PM 2.5 predictions. For annual PM 2.5 estimates, the cross-validated R 2 was 0.89. Our model demonstrated good performance up to 60 μg/m 3 . Using trained PM 2.5 model and predictor variables, we predicted daily PM 2.5 from 2000 to 2015 at every 1 km × 1 km grid cell in the contiguous United States. We also used localized land-use variables within 1 km × 1 km grids to downscale PM 2.5 predictions to 100 m × 100 m grid cells. To characterize uncertainty, we used meteorological variables, land-use variables, and elevation to model the monthly standard deviation of the difference between daily monitored and predicted PM 2.5 for every 1 km × 1 km grid cell. This PM 2.5 prediction dataset, including the downscaled and uncertainty predictions, allows epidemiologists to accurately estimate the adverse health effect of PM 2.5 . Compared with model performance of individual base learners, an ensemble model would achieve a better overall estimation. It is worth exploring other ensemble model formats to synthesize estimations from different models or from different groups to improve overall performance.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.envint.2019.104909

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 4 references

Cited by

See all 733

Metadata

Authors
Di, Q., Amini, H., Shi, L., Kloog, I., Silvern, R., Kelly, J., Sabath, M. B., Choirat, C., Koutrakis, P., Lyapustin, A., Wang, Y., Mickley, L. J., & Schwartz, J.
Venue
Environment International
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-09
Volume
130
Pages
104909
ISSN
0160-4120 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2954586028
Cited by
733
References
4
FWCI
28.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
gold

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An ensemble-based model of PM2.5 concentration across the contiguous United States with high spatiotemporal resolution. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104909
The paper
Di, Q., Amini, H., Shi, L., Kloog, I., Silvern, R., Kelly, J., Sabath, M. B., Choirat, C., Koutrakis, P., Lyapustin, A., Wang, Y., Mickley, L. J., & Schwartz, J. (2019). An ensemble-based model of PM2.5 concentration across the contiguous United States with high spatiotemporal resolution. Environment International. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104909

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.