4.6 Article

Time-Series Analysis of Air Pollution and Health Accounting for Covariate-Dependent Overdispersion

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 187, 期 12, 页码 2698-2704

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/aje/kwy170

关键词

air pollution; generalized Poisson model; negative binomial model; overdispersion; time-series analysis

资金

  1. Environmental Protection Agency [R834799]
  2. National Institutes of Health [R01ES027892, UL1TR000454]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Time-series studies are routinely used to estimate associations between adverse health outcomes and short-term exposures to ambient air pollutants. Use of the Poisson log-linear model with the assumption of constant overdispersion is the most common approach, particularly when estimating associations between daily air pollution concentrations and aggregated counts of adverse health events throughout a geographical region. We examined how the assumption of constant overdispersion plays a role in estimation of air pollution effects by comparing estimates derived from the standard approach with those estimated from covariate-dependent Bayesian generalized Poisson and negative binomial models that accounted for potential time-varying overdispersion. Through simulation studies, we found that while there was negligible bias in effect estimates, the standard quasi-Poisson approach can result in a larger standard error when the constant overdispersion assumption is violated. This was also observed in a time-series study of daily emergency department visits for respiratory diseases and ozone concentration in Atlanta, Georgia (1999-2009). Allowing for covariate-dependent overdispersion resulted in a reduction in the ozone effect standard error, while the ozone-associated relative risk remained robust to different model specifications. Our findings suggest that improved characterization of overdispersion in time-series modeling can result inmore precise health effect estimates in studies of short-term environmental exposures.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据