Cargando…

Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology

Although environmental epidemiology studies often rely on geocoding procedures in the process of assigning spatial exposure estimates, geocoding methods are not commonly reported, nor are consequent errors in exposure assignment explored. Geocoding methods differ in accuracy, however, and, given the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kinnee, Ellen J., Tripathy, Sheila, Schinasi, Leah, Shmool, Jessie L. C., Sheffield, Perry E., Holguin, Fernando, Clougherty, Jane E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7459468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32806682
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165845
_version_ 1783576381328719872
author Kinnee, Ellen J.
Tripathy, Sheila
Schinasi, Leah
Shmool, Jessie L. C.
Sheffield, Perry E.
Holguin, Fernando
Clougherty, Jane E.
author_facet Kinnee, Ellen J.
Tripathy, Sheila
Schinasi, Leah
Shmool, Jessie L. C.
Sheffield, Perry E.
Holguin, Fernando
Clougherty, Jane E.
author_sort Kinnee, Ellen J.
collection PubMed
description Although environmental epidemiology studies often rely on geocoding procedures in the process of assigning spatial exposure estimates, geocoding methods are not commonly reported, nor are consequent errors in exposure assignment explored. Geocoding methods differ in accuracy, however, and, given the increasing refinement of available exposure models for air pollution and other exposures, geocoding error may account for an increasingly larger proportion of exposure misclassification. We used residential addresses from a reasonably large, dense dataset of asthma emergency department visits from all New York City hospitals (n = 21,183; 26.9 addresses/km(2)), and geocoded each using three methods (Address Point, Street Segment, Parcel Centroid). We compared missingness and spatial patterning therein, quantified distance and directional errors, and quantified impacts on pollution exposure estimates and assignment to Census areas for sociodemographic characterization. Parcel Centroids had the highest overall missingness rate (38.1%, Address Point = 9.6%, Street Segment = 6.1%), and spatial clustering in missingness was significant for all methods, though its spatial patterns differed. Street Segment geocodes had the largest mean distance error (µ = 29.2 (SD = 26.2) m; vs. µ = 15.9 (SD = 17.7) m for Parcel Centroids), and the strongest spatial patterns therein. We found substantial over- and under-estimation of pollution exposures, with greater error for higher pollutant concentrations, but minimal impact on Census area assignment. Finally, we developed surfaces of spatial patterns in errors in order to identify locations in the study area where exposures may be over-/under-estimated. Our observations provide insights towards refining geocoding methods for epidemiology, and suggest methods for quantifying and interpreting geocoding error with respect to exposure misclassification, towards understanding potential impacts on health effect estimates.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7459468
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-74594682020-09-02 Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology Kinnee, Ellen J. Tripathy, Sheila Schinasi, Leah Shmool, Jessie L. C. Sheffield, Perry E. Holguin, Fernando Clougherty, Jane E. Int J Environ Res Public Health Article Although environmental epidemiology studies often rely on geocoding procedures in the process of assigning spatial exposure estimates, geocoding methods are not commonly reported, nor are consequent errors in exposure assignment explored. Geocoding methods differ in accuracy, however, and, given the increasing refinement of available exposure models for air pollution and other exposures, geocoding error may account for an increasingly larger proportion of exposure misclassification. We used residential addresses from a reasonably large, dense dataset of asthma emergency department visits from all New York City hospitals (n = 21,183; 26.9 addresses/km(2)), and geocoded each using three methods (Address Point, Street Segment, Parcel Centroid). We compared missingness and spatial patterning therein, quantified distance and directional errors, and quantified impacts on pollution exposure estimates and assignment to Census areas for sociodemographic characterization. Parcel Centroids had the highest overall missingness rate (38.1%, Address Point = 9.6%, Street Segment = 6.1%), and spatial clustering in missingness was significant for all methods, though its spatial patterns differed. Street Segment geocodes had the largest mean distance error (µ = 29.2 (SD = 26.2) m; vs. µ = 15.9 (SD = 17.7) m for Parcel Centroids), and the strongest spatial patterns therein. We found substantial over- and under-estimation of pollution exposures, with greater error for higher pollutant concentrations, but minimal impact on Census area assignment. Finally, we developed surfaces of spatial patterns in errors in order to identify locations in the study area where exposures may be over-/under-estimated. Our observations provide insights towards refining geocoding methods for epidemiology, and suggest methods for quantifying and interpreting geocoding error with respect to exposure misclassification, towards understanding potential impacts on health effect estimates. MDPI 2020-08-12 2020-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7459468/ /pubmed/32806682 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165845 Text en © 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Kinnee, Ellen J.
Tripathy, Sheila
Schinasi, Leah
Shmool, Jessie L. C.
Sheffield, Perry E.
Holguin, Fernando
Clougherty, Jane E.
Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology
title Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology
title_full Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology
title_fullStr Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology
title_full_unstemmed Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology
title_short Geocoding Error, Spatial Uncertainty, and Implications for Exposure Assessment and Environmental Epidemiology
title_sort geocoding error, spatial uncertainty, and implications for exposure assessment and environmental epidemiology
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7459468/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32806682
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17165845
work_keys_str_mv AT kinneeellenj geocodingerrorspatialuncertaintyandimplicationsforexposureassessmentandenvironmentalepidemiology
AT tripathysheila geocodingerrorspatialuncertaintyandimplicationsforexposureassessmentandenvironmentalepidemiology
AT schinasileah geocodingerrorspatialuncertaintyandimplicationsforexposureassessmentandenvironmentalepidemiology
AT shmooljessielc geocodingerrorspatialuncertaintyandimplicationsforexposureassessmentandenvironmentalepidemiology
AT sheffieldperrye geocodingerrorspatialuncertaintyandimplicationsforexposureassessmentandenvironmentalepidemiology
AT holguinfernando geocodingerrorspatialuncertaintyandimplicationsforexposureassessmentandenvironmentalepidemiology
AT cloughertyjanee geocodingerrorspatialuncertaintyandimplicationsforexposureassessmentandenvironmentalepidemiology