Cited by 31Pesticide Exposure and ToxicityGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging

Residential mobility in early childhood and the impact on misclassification in pesticide exposures

Open access
Ling, Chenxiao, Heck, Julia E., Cockburn, Myles, Liew, Zeyan, Marcotte, Erin, Ritz, Beate·2019·Environmental Research

Abstract

Studies of environmental exposures and childhood cancers that rely on records often only use maternal address at birth or address at cancer diagnosis to assess exposures in early childhood, possibly leading to exposure misclassification and questionable validity due to residential mobility during early childhood. Our objective was to assess patterns and identify factors that may predict residential mobility in early childhood, and examine the impact of mobility on early childhood exposure assessment for agriculturally applied pesticides and childhood cancers in California. We obtained the addresses at diagnosis of all childhood cancer cases born in 1998-2011 and diagnosed at 0-5 years of age (n = 6478) from the California Cancer Registry (CCR), and their birth addresses from linked birth certificates. Controls were randomly selected from California birth records and frequency matched (20:1) to all cases by year of birth. We obtained residential histories from a public-record database LexisNexis for both case (n = 3877 with age at diagnosis 1-5 years) and control (n = 99,262) families. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to assess the socio-demographic factors in relation to residential mobility in early childhood. We employed a Geographic Information System (GIS)-based system to estimate children's first year of life exposures to agriculturally applied pesticides based on birth vs diagnosis address or residential histories based upon Lexis-Nexis Public Records and assessed agreement between exposure measures using Spearman correlations and kappa statistics. Over 20% of case and control children moved in their first year of life, and 55% of children with cancer moved between birth and diagnosis. Older age at diagnosis, younger maternal age, lower maternal education, not having a Hispanic ethnic background, use of public health insurance, and non-metropolitan residence at birth were predictors of higher residential mobility. There was moderate to strong correlation (Spearman correlation = 0.76-0.83) and good agreement (kappa = 0.75-0.81) between the first year of life exposure estimates for agricultural pesticides applied within 2 km of a residence relying on an address at birth or at diagnosis or LexisNexis addresses; this did not differ by outcome status, but agreement decreased with decreasing buffer size, and increasing distance moved or age at diagnosis. These findings suggest that residential addresses collected at one point in time may represent residential history in early childhood to a reasonable extent; nevertheless, they exposure misclassification in the first year of life remains an issue. Also, the highest proportion of women not captured by LexisNexis were Hispanic women born in Mexico and those living in the lowest SES neighborhoods, i.e. possibly those with the higher environmental exposures, as well as younger women and those with less than high school education. Though LexisNexis only captures a sub-population, its data may be useful for augmenting address information and assessing the extent of exposure misclassification when estimating environmental exposures in large record linkage studies. Future research should investigate how to correct for exposure misclassification introduced by residential mobility that is not being captured by records.

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.envres.2019.03.039

Cites

42 of 42 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Two studies concluded that address at birth was adequate for research on the effect of early exposures.

    “while the other 2 concluded that address at birth was adequate for research on the effect of early exposures.15,57”

    From The quality of social determinants data in the electronic health record: a systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Discussion conclusion says that a single residential address should be used with caution to estimate early-childhood exposures, especially after the first year of life. Although it reports moderate-to-good agreement for pesticide exposures assessed around birth and alternative addresses, it does not conclude that the birth address is adequate for the stated research purpose. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Three studies concluded that a single patient address was sufficient when patients may have moved several times over the study period.

    “When confronted with data from patients who may have moved several times over the study period, 3 studies concluded that a single patient address was sufficient;15,56,57”

    From The quality of social determinants data in the electronic health record: a systematic review (2021) · cites this paper as [57]

    The Discussion (page unavailable) reports moderate-to-strong agreement between pesticide exposure estimates based on a single address and residential histories, and says misclassification may be acceptable for the first year of life. It does not conclude that one address is generally sufficient when patients have moved several times: agreement varied with distance moved and buffer size, and the paper cautions that misclassification remains an issue. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Four (80%) of the included articles explored the impact of residential mobility on exposure assessment.

    “Four (80%) of the included articles explored the impact of residential mobility on exposure assessment; that is, whether patients’ moving impacted the results of studies looking at environmental outcomes.15,16,56,57”
  • Ling et al noticed significant differences between patients with complete address information and those who were missing information; Hispanic women born in Mexico and people living in poor neighborhoods were more likely to have missing addresses.

    “In a study on using patient addresses to determine pesticide exposures, Ling et al57 noticed that there were significant differences between patients with complete address information and those who were missing information. In particular, Hispanic women born in Mexico and people living in poor neighborhoods were more likely to have missing addresses.”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 44 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Cayo MR, Talbot TO, 2003 Positional error in automated geocoding of residential addresses. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2, 10. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-2-10 14687425 PMC324564 · DOI
  2. Costello S, Cockburn M, Bronstein J, Zhang X, Ritz B, 2009 Parkinson’s disease and residential exposure to maneb and paraquat from agricultural applications in the central valley of California. Am. J. Epidemiol. 169, 919– 26. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwp006 19270050 PMC2727231 · DOI
  3. Goldberg DW, Wilson JP, Knoblock CA, Ritz B, Cockburn MG, 2008 An effective and efficient approach for manually improving geocoded data. Int. J. Health Geogr. 7, 60. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-7-60 19032791 PMC2612650 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ling, C., Heck, J. E., Cockburn, M., Liew, Z., Marcotte, E., & Ritz, B.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Ritz, Beate
Venue
Environmental Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-06
Volume
173
Pages
212-220
ISSN
0013-9351 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2923518022
Cited by
31
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 3
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (R01ES10544, R21ES019986, R21ES018960, R01CA195218)
  • Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation (17-01882)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Pesticide Exposure and Toxicity
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Keywords
residential mobility, early childhood, pesticide exposure, childhood cancer, exposure misclassification, agricultural pesticides, exposure assessment, maternal factors, Hispanic children, California Cancer Registry, birth certificates, residential history, socioeconomic factors, age at diagnosis, maternal education, maternal age, public health insurance, buffer distance
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, California, Child, Child, Preschool, Environmental Exposure, Female, Humans, Infant, Infant, Newborn, Mexico, Pesticides, Population Dynamics, Pregnancy, Young Adult

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