ArticlePLOS global public health2023
Combining aggregate and individual-level data to estimate individual-level associations between air pollution and COVID-19 mortality in the United States.
Article in PLOS global public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Urban air pollution and chronic respiratory diseases in adults: insights from a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Investigating the ecological fallacy through sampling distributions constructed from finite populations.Monte Carlo methods and applications · 2024Article
- Policy-induced air pollution health disparities: Statistical and data science considerations.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Imposing stricter regulations for PM2.5 has the potential to mitigate damaging health and climate change effects. Recent evidence establishing a link between exposure to air pollution and COVID-19 outcomes is one of many arguments for the need to reduce the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5. However, many studies reporting a relationship between COVID-19 outcomes and PM2.5 have been criticized because they are based on ecological regression analyses, where area-level counts of COVID-19 outcomes are regressed on area-level exposure to air pollution and other covariates. It is well known that regression models solely based on area-level data are subject to ecological bias, i.e., they may provide a biased estimate of the association at the individual-level, due to within-area variability of the data. In this paper, we augment county-level COVID-19 mortality data with a nationally representative sample of individual-level covariate information from the American Community Survey along with high-resolution estimates of PM2.5 concentrations obtained from a validated model and aggregated to the census tract for the contiguous United States. We apply a Bayesian hierarchical modeling approach to combine county-, census tract-, and individual-level data to ultimately draw inference about individual-level associations between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and mortality for COVID-19. By analyzing data prior to the Emergency Use Authorization for the COVID-19 vaccines we found that an increase of 1 μg/m3 in long-term PM2.5 exposure, averaged over the 17-year period 2000-2016, is associated with a 3.3% (95% credible interval, 2.8 to 3.8%) increase in an individual's odds of COVID-19 mortality. Code to reproduce our study is publicly available at https://github.com/NSAPH/PM_COVID_ecoinference. The results confirm previous evidence of an association between long-term exposure to PM2.5 and COVID-19 mortality and strengthen the case for tighter regulations on harmful air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.