Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 298

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 47 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing NO2 Concentration and Model Uncertainty with High Spatiotemporal Resolution across the Contiguous United States Using Ensemble Model Averaging

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·2020·Environmental Science & Technology
DOI 10.1021/acs.est.9b03358
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

NO 2 is a combustion byproduct that has been associated with multiple adverse health outcomes. To assess NO 2 levels with high accuracy, we propose the use of an ensemble model to integrate multiple machine learning algorithms, including neural network, random forest, and gradient boosting, with a variety of predictor variables, including chemical transport models. This NO 2 model covers the entire contiguous U.S. with daily predictions on 1-km-level grid cells from 2000 to 2016. The ensemble produced a cross-validated R 2 of 0.788 overall, a spatial R 2 of 0.844, and a temporal R 2 of 0.729. The relationship between daily monitored and predicted NO 2 is almost linear. We also estimated the associated monthly uncertainty level for the predictions and address-specific NO 2 levels. This NO 2 estimation has a very high spatiotemporal resolution and allows the examination of the health effects of NO 2 in unmonitored areas. We found the highest NO 2 levels along highways and in cities. We also observed that nationwide NO 2 levels declined in early years and stagnated after 2007, in contrast to the trend at monitoring sites in urban areas, where the decline continued. Our research indicates that the integration of different predictor variables and fitting algorithms can achieve an improved air pollution modeling framework.

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.9b03358

Cites

47 of 47 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 298

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
Environmental Science & Technology
Publisher
American Chemical Society (ACS)
Published
2019-12-18
Volume
54
Issue
3
Pages
1372-1384
ISSN
  • 0013-936X (ISSN-L)
  • 1520-5851
DOI
10.1021/acs.est.9b03358
OpenAlex
W2996331566
Cited by
298
References
47
FWCI
10.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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.