On the use of generalized additive models in time-series studies of air pollution and health
Abstract
The widely used generalized additive models (GAM) method is a flexible and effective technique for conducting nonlinear regression analysis in time-series studies of the health effects of air pollution. When the data to which the GAM are being applied have two characteristics--1) the estimated regression coefficients are small and 2) there exist confounding factors that are modeled using at least two nonparametric smooth functions--the default settings in the gam function of the S-Plus software package (version 3.4) do not assure convergence of its iterative estimation procedure and can provide biased estimates of regression coefficients and standard errors. This phenomenon has occurred in time-series analyses of contemporary data on air pollution and mortality. To evaluate the impact of default implementation of the gam software on published analyses, the authors reanalyzed data from the National Morbidity, Mortality, and Air Pollution Study (NMMAPS) using three different methods: 1) Poisson regression with parametric nonlinear adjustments for confounding factors; 2) GAM with default convergence parameters; and 3) GAM with more stringent convergence parameters than the default settings. The authors found that pooled NMMAPS estimates were very similar under the first and third methods but were biased upward under the second method.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Various regression models and parameter settings affect regression coefficients.
“Earlier simulation studies have shown that various regression models and parameter setting in the models (e.g. df selection, convergence criteria) would affect the regression coefficients (Dominici et al. 2002; Peng et al. 2006).”
From Differentiating the effects of fine and coarse particles on daily mortality in Shanghai, China (2007) · cites this paper as Dominici et al. 2002
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 728
- Authors
- Dominici, F.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dominici, F.
- ORCID
- Dominici, F.
- Venue
- American Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2002-08-01
- Volume
- 156
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 193-203
- ISSN
- 0002-9262 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2104610706
- Cited by
- 728
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 20 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 33 · 2012: 22
- FWCI
- 35.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- American Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (P30ES003819, 5P30ES03819-12)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Spatial and Panel Data Analysis
- Keywords
- generalized additive models, air pollution, air pollution health effects, time series analysis, nonlinear regression, confounding factors, nonparametric smoothing, standard errors, mortality, Poisson regression
- MeSH terms
- Air Pollution, Algorithms, Health Status, Humans, Morbidity, Mortality, Regression Analysis, United States, Models, Statistical, Epidemiologic Factors, Nonlinear Dynamics, Statistics, Nonparametric
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