Abstract
BackgroundMost epidemiological studies estimate associations without considering exposure measurement error. While some studies have estimated the impact of error in single-exposure models we aimed to quantify the effect of measurement error in multi-exposure models, specifically in time-series analysis of PM2.5, NO2, and mortality using simulations, under various plausible scenarios for exposure errors. Measurement error in multi-exposure models can lead to effect transfer where the effect estimate is overestimated for the pollutant estimated with more error to the one estimated with less error. This complicates interpretation of the independent effects of different pollutants and thus the relative importance of reducing their concentrations in air pollution policy.MethodsMeasurement error was defined as the difference between ambient concentrations and personal exposure from outdoor sources. Simulation inputs for error magnitude and variability were informed by the literature. Error-free exposures with their consequent health outcome and error-prone exposures of various error types (classical/Berkson) were generated. Bias was quantified as the relative difference in effect estimates of the error-free and error-prone exposures.ResultsMortality effect estimates were generally underestimated with greater bias observed when low ratios of the true exposure variance over the error variance were assumed (27.4% underestimation for NO2). Higher ratios resulted in smaller, but still substantial bias (up to 19% for both pollutants). Effect transfer was observed indicating that less precise measurements for one pollutant (NO2) yield more bias, while the co-pollutant (PM2.5) associations were found closer to the true. Interestingly, the sum of single-pollutant model effect estimates was found closer to the summed true associations than those from multi-pollutant models, due to cancelling out of confounding and measurement error bias.ConclusionsOur simulation study indicated an underestimation of true independent health effects of multiple exposures due to measurement error. Using error parameter information in future epidemiological studies should provide more accurate concentration-response functions.
Highlights
Air pollution is the major environmental factor affecting human health [1, 2]
Our focus was only on the quantification of exposure measurement error bias, so we did not include some features of time-series that may introduce other forms of bias and need to be taken into account in real data analysis, such as autocorrelation, trends or confounders measured with error
Pure Berkson error model resulted in overestimation of the true mortality effect for all areas and pollutants by 1.5 to 8.2%, except for the NO2 coefficient for Europe, the assumed area scenario with the lower exposure variance/error variance ratio and higher corresponding ratio for the co-exposure
Summary
Air pollution is the major environmental factor affecting human health [1, 2]. Many publications report associations of morbidity and mortality outcomes with exposure to air pollutants, such as PM2.5, NO2 and O3 [3, 4]. While some studies have estimated the impact of error in single-exposure models we aimed to quantify the effect of measurement error in multi-exposure models, in time-series analysis of PM2.5, NO2, and mortality using simulations, under various plausible scenarios for exposure errors. Measurement error in multi-exposure models can lead to effect transfer where the effect estimate is overestimated for the pollutant estimated with more error to the one estimated with less error. This complicates interpretation of the independent effects of different pollutants and the relative importance of reducing their concentrations in air pollution policy
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
