IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0264833.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A simulation-based assessment of the ability to detect thresholds in chronic risk concentration-response functions in the presence of exposure measurement error

Author

Listed:
  • Garrett Glasgow
  • Bharat Ramkrishnan
  • Anne E Smith

Abstract

An important question when setting appropriate air quality standards for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) is whether there exists a “threshold” in the concentration-response (C-R) function, such that PM2.5 levels below this threshold are not expected to produce adverse health effects. We hypothesize that measurement error may affect the recognition of a threshold in long-term cohort epidemiological studies. This study conducts what is, to the best of our knowledge, the first simulation of the effects of measurement error on the statistical models commonly employed in long-term cohort studies. We test the degree to which classical-type measurement error, such as differences between the true population-weighted exposure level to a pollutant and the observed measures of that pollutant, affects the ability to statistically detect a C-R threshold. The results demonstrate that measurement error can obscure the existence of a threshold in a cohort study’s C-R function for health risks from chronic exposures. With increased measurement error the ability to statistically detect a C-R threshold decreases, and both the estimated location of the C-R threshold and the estimated hazard ratio associated with PM2.5 are attenuated. This result has clear implications for determining appropriate air quality standards for pollutants.

Suggested Citation

  • Garrett Glasgow & Bharat Ramkrishnan & Anne E Smith, 2022. "A simulation-based assessment of the ability to detect thresholds in chronic risk concentration-response functions in the presence of exposure measurement error," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(3), pages 1-17, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0264833
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264833
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0264833
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0264833&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0264833?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. M. Brauer & J. Brumm & S. Vedal & A. J. Petkau, 2002. "Exposure Misclassification and Threshold Concentrations in Time Series Analyses of Air Pollution Health Effects," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 22(6), pages 1183-1193, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Anne E. Smith, 2018. "Setting Air Quality Standards for PM2.5: A Role for Subjective Uncertainty in NAAQS Quantitative Risk Assessments?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(11), pages 2318-2339, November.
    2. Suresh H. Moolgavkar & Ellen T. Chang & Heather N. Watson & Edmund C. Lau, 2018. "An Assessment of the Cox Proportional Hazards Regression Model for Epidemiologic Studies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(4), pages 777-794, April.
    3. Anne E. Smith, 2015. "Response to Commentary by Fann et al. on “Enhancing the Characterization of Epistemic Uncertainties in PM2.5 Risk Analyses”," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(3), pages 381-384, March.
    4. Yuheng Wu & Lin Zhang & Jilong Wang & Yi Mou, 2021. "Communicating Air Quality Index Information: Effects of Different Styles on Individuals’ Risk Perception and Precaution Intention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-15, October.
    5. Anne E. Smith, 2016. "Inconsistencies in Risk Analyses for Ambient Air Pollutant Regulations," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(9), pages 1737-1744, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0264833. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.