Exploring bias in a generalized additive model for spatial air pollution data.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During the past few years, the generalized additive model (GAM) has become a standard tool for epidemiologic analysis exploring the effect of air pollution on population health. Recently, the use of the GAM has been extended from time-series data to spatial data. Still more recently, it has been suggested that the use of GAMs to analyze time-series data results in air pollution risk estimates being biased upward and that concurvity in the time-series data results in standard error estimates being biased downward. We show that concurvity in spatial data can lead to underestimation of the standard error of the estimated air pollution effect, even when using an asymptotically unbiased standard error estimator. We also show that both the magnitude and direction of the bias in the air pollution effect depend, at least in part, on the nature of the concurvity. We argue that including a nonparametric function of location in a GAM for spatial epidemiologic data can be expected to result in concurvity. As a result, we recommend caution in using the GAM to analyze this type of data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".