A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Exposure measurement error in air pollution health effect studies: a pooled analysis of personal exposure validation studies in 17 communities across the United States. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Despite demonstrated adverse health effects of air pollution, the impact of exposure measurement error on these associations remains unexplored, especially for NO and PM components. We compiled daily personal measurements of PM, NO, and PM components - including Al, Cd, Fe, K, Ni, Pb, S, and Si - from previous studies as true exposure indicators. These were compared against ambient concentrations from the nearest monitors. We used Spearman correlation to examine relationships between monthly averages of personal exposures and ambient concentrations. Calibration coefficients were derived using linear mixed models to quantify measurement errors. Results showed strong correlations between monthly personal exposures and ambient concentrations for PM, NO, Cd, Ni, S, and Si across the US. Calibration coefficients for personal PM and NO were 0.46 (95% CI: 0.13, 0.78) and 0.97 (0.35, 1.59), respectively. Significant coefficients were also found for S (0.48; 95% CI: 0.27, 0.68), Cd (0.47; 0.17, 0.76), and Ni (0.17; 0.02, 0.32). Point estimates for calibration coefficients were all below one, indicating that using the nearest monitors as exposure surrogates would attenuate associations with health risks. The measurement error in component-wise analysis highlights the need for incorporating these calibration coefficients into future studies to adjust for such errors adequately.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12353117PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09603123.2025.2488481DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

calibration coefficients
16
measurement error
12
ambient concentrations
12
exposure measurement
8
air pollution
8
nearest monitors
8
personal exposures
8
exposures ambient
8
concentrations calibration
8
exposure
5

Similar Publications