Cited by 1,156Statistical Methods in EpidemiologyAir Quality and Health ImpactsHealth, Environment, Cognitive Aging

Exposure measurement error in time-series studies of air pollution: concepts and consequences

Open access
Zeger, S L, Thomas, D, Dominici, F, Samet, J M, Schwartz, J, Dockery, D, Cohen, A·2000·Environmental Health Perspectives

Abstract

Misclassification of exposure is a well-recognized inherent limitation of epidemiologic studies of disease and the environment. For many agents of interest, exposures take place over time and in multiple locations; accurately estimating the relevant exposures for an individual participant in epidemiologic studies is often daunting, particularly within the limits set by feasibility, participant burden, and cost. Researchers have taken steps to deal with the consequences of measurement error by limiting the degree of error through a study's design, estimating the degree of error using a nested validation study, and by adjusting for measurement error in statistical analyses. In this paper, we address measurement error in observational studies of air pollution and health. Because measurement error may have substantial implications for interpreting epidemiologic studies on air pollution, particularly the time-series analyses, we developed a systematic conceptual formulation of the problem of measurement error in epidemiologic studies of air pollution and then considered the consequences within this formulation. When possible, we used available relevant data to make simple estimates of measurement error effects. This paper provides an overview of measurement errors in linear regression, distinguishing two extremes of a continuum-Berkson from classical type errors, and the univariate from the multivariate predictor case. We then propose one conceptual framework for the evaluation of measurement errors in the log-linear regression used for time-series studies of particulate air pollution and mortality and identify three main components of error. We present new simple analyses of data on exposures of particulate matter < 10 microm in aerodynamic diameter from the Particle Total Exposure Assessment Methodology Study. Finally, we summarize open questions regarding measurement error and suggest the kind of additional data necessary to address them.

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 · 10.1289/ehp.00108419

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • The resulting measurement error may have implications for interpreting the effect of particles.

    “The resulting measurement error may have implications for interpreting the effect of particles (Zeger et al. 2000), although a study suggested that this measurement error would generally tend to bias estimates downward (Samet et al. 2000).”
  • Failure to measure indoor sources will not introduce further bias in the estimated effects of ambient particles when indoor fine particle concentrations are independent of ambient levels.

    “When this is true, failure to measure indoor sources will not introduce further bias in the estimated effects of ambient particles (Zeger et al. 2000).”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [3]3. National Research Council, Committee on Advances in Assessing Human Exposure to Airborne Pollutants. Human Exposure Assessment for Airborne Pollutants: Advances and Opportunities. Washington, DC:National Academy Press, 1991.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zeger, S. L., Thomas, D., Dominici, F., Samet, J. M., Schwartz, J., Dockery, D., & Cohen, A.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Venue
Environmental Health Perspectives
Published
2000-05-01
Volume
108
Issue
5
Pages
419-426
ISSN
  • 0091-6765 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-9924
OpenAlex
W1976888543
Cited by
1,156
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 37 · 2025: 47 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 70 · 2020: 83 · 2019: 73 · 2018: 63 · 2017: 52 · 2016: 45 · 2015: 62 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 52 · 2012: 51
FWCI
25.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • Environmental Health Perspectives (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (5P30 ESO 3819-12)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Air Quality and Health Impacts
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Health, Environment, Cognitive Aging
Keywords
exposure measurement error, air pollution, time-series studies, Berkson error, log-linear regression, particulate matter, PM10, mortality, exposure misclassification, exposure assessment
MeSH terms
Air Pollution, Environmental Exposure, Environmental Health, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Mortality, Regression Analysis, Time Factors, Bias, Risk Assessment

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