| pubmed-article:12530788 | pubmed:abstractText | Linear, no-threshold relationships are typically reported for time series studies of air pollution and mortality. Since regulatory standards and economic valuations typically assume some threshold level, we evaluated the fundamental question of the impact of exposure misclassification on the persistence of underlying personal-level thresholds when personal data are aggregated to the population level in the assessment of exposure-response relationships. As an example, we measured personal exposures to two particle metrics, PM2.5 and sulfate (SO4(2-)), for a sample of lung disease patients and compared these with exposures estimated from ambient measurements Previous work has shown that ambient:personal correlations for PM2.5 are much lower than for SO4(2-), suggesting that ambient PM2.5 measurements misclassify exposures to PM2.5. We then developed a method by which the measured:estimated exposure relationships for these patients were used to simulate personal exposures for a larger population and then to estimate individual-level mortality risks under different threshold assumptions. These individual risks were combined to obtain the population risk of death, thereby exhibiting the prominence (and the value) of the threshold in the relationship between risk and estimated exposure. Our results indicated that for poorly classified exposures (PM2.5 in this example) population-level thresholds were apparent at lower ambient concentrations than specified common personal thresholds, while for well-classified exposures (e.g., SO4(2-)), the apparent thresholds were similar to these underlying personal thresholds. These results demonstrate that surrogate metrics that are not highly correlated with personal exposures obscure the presence of thresholds in epidemiological studies of larger populations, while exposure indicators that are highly correlated with personal exposures can accurately reflect underlying personal thresholds. | lld:pubmed |
