Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 241

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Data Integration for the Assessment of Population Exposure to Ambient Air Pollution for Global Burden of Disease Assessment

Shaddick, Gavin, Thomas, Matthew L., Amini, Heresh, Broday, David, Cohen, Aaron, Frostad, Joseph, Green, Amelia, Gumy, Sophie, Liu, Yang, Martin, Randall V., Pruss-Ustun, Annette, Simpson, Daniel, van Donkelaar, Aaron, Brauer, Michael·2018·Environmental Science & Technology

Abstract

Air pollution is a leading global disease risk factor. Tracking progress (e.g., for Sustainable Development Goals) requires accurate, spatially resolved, routinely updated exposure estimates. A Bayesian hierarchical model was developed to estimate annual average fine particle (PM 2.5 ) concentrations at 0.1° × 0.1° spatial resolution globally for 2010–2016. The model incorporated spatially varying relationships between 6003 ground measurements from 117 countries, satellite-based estimates, and other predictors. Model coefficients indicated larger contributions from satellite-based estimates in countries with low monitor density. Within and out-of-sample cross-validation indicated improved predictions of ground measurements compared to previous (Global Burden of Disease 2013) estimates (increased within-sample R 2 from 0.64 to 0.91, reduced out-of-sample, global population-weighted root mean squared error from 23 μg/m 3 to 12 μg/m 3 ). In 2016, 95% of the world’s population lived in areas where ambient PM 2.5 levels exceeded the World Health Organization 10 μg/m 3 (annual average) guideline; 58% resided in areas above the 35 μg/m 3 Interim Target-1. Global population-weighted PM 2.5 concentrations were 18% higher in 2016 (51.1 μg/m 3 ) than in 2010 (43.2 μg/m 3 ), reflecting in particular increases in populous South Asian countries and from Saharan dust transported to West Africa. Concentrations in China were high (2016 population-weighted mean: 56.4 μg/m 3 ) but stable during this period.

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 · 10.1021/acs.est.8b02864

Cites

3 of 3 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

Cited by

See all 241

Metadata

Authors
Shaddick, G., Thomas, M. L., Amini, H., Broday, D., Cohen, A., Frostad, J., Green, A., Gumy, S., Liu, Y., Martin, R. V., Pruss-Ustun, A., Simpson, D., van Donkelaar, A., & Brauer, M.
Venue
Environmental Science & Technology
Published
2018-06-29
Volume
52
Issue
16
Pages
9069-9078
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
OpenAlex
W2809802736
Cited by
241
References
3
FWCI
12.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

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.