Exposure measurement error in PM2.5 health effects studies: a pooled analysis of eight personal exposure validation studies.
Exposure measurement error in PM2.5 health effects studies: a pooled analysis of eight personal exposure validation studies.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1476-069x-13-2
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-13
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Suh H
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Kioumourtzoglou MA;Spiegelman D;Szpiro AA;Sheppard L;Kaufman JD;Yanosky JD;Williams R;Laden F;Hong B;Suh H
在使用环境浓度作为暴露量的长期 PM2.5 健康研究中，暴露测量误差是一个令人担忧的问题。我们通过估计校准系数来评估误差大小，校准系数是验证研究中的个人 PM2.5 暴露与通常可用的替代暴露之间的关联。每日个人和环境 PM2.5 以及可用硫酸盐的测量数据是在 2 至 12 天内对 9 个城市进行的。真实暴露定义为个人暴露于环境来源的 PM2.5。由于只能确定五个城市的环境来源 PM2.5，因此还考虑了个人接触 PM2.5 总量的情况。替代暴露被估计为最近监测器的环境 PM2.5 或预测的受试者家外。我们通过对随机效应模型中的替代暴露进行回归来估计校准系数。当使用环境来源的月平均个人 PM2.5 作为真实暴露时，最近监测器的校准系数等于 0.31 (95% CI:0.14, 0.47)，户外家庭预测的校准系数等于 0.54 (95% CI:0.42, 0.65)。对于室外家庭 PM2.5 的真实暴露量，未发现城市间的异质性。对于两种真实暴露量，最近监测 PM2.5 的异质性显着，但在调整个人 PM2.5 总量的城市平均机动车辆数量后，异质性不显着。校准系数<1，与之前报告的慢性健康风险一致，当环境浓度是感兴趣的暴露时，使用最近的监测器暴露被低估。户外家居预测的校准系数接近 1，可能反映出空间误差较小。需要进一步的研究来确定如何将我们的发现纳入未来的健康研究中。
Exposure measurement error is a concern in long-term PM2.5 health studies using ambient concentrations as exposures. We assessed error magnitude by estimating calibration coefficients as the association between personal PM2.5 exposures from validation studies and typically available surrogate exposures. Daily personal and ambient PM2.5, and when available sulfate, measurements were compiled from nine cities, over 2 to 12 days. True exposure was defined as personal exposure to PM2.5 of ambient origin. Since PM2.5 of ambient origin could only be determined for five cities, personal exposure to total PM2.5 was also considered. Surrogate exposures were estimated as ambient PM2.5 at the nearest monitor or predicted outside subjects’ homes. We estimated calibration coefficients by regressing true on surrogate exposures in random effects models. When monthly-averaged personal PM2.5 of ambient origin was used as the true exposure, calibration coefficients equaled 0.31 (95% CI:0.14, 0.47) for nearest monitor and 0.54 (95% CI:0.42, 0.65) for outdoor home predictions. Between-city heterogeneity was not found for outdoor home PM2.5 for either true exposure. Heterogeneity was significant for nearest monitor PM2.5, for both true exposures, but not after adjusting for city-average motor vehicle number for total personal PM2.5. Calibration coefficients were <1, consistent with previously reported chronic health risks using nearest monitor exposures being under-estimated when ambient concentrations are the exposure of interest. Calibration coefficients were closer to 1 for outdoor home predictions, likely reflecting less spatial error. Further research is needed to determine how our findings can be incorporated in future health studies.