The positive effects of population-based preferential sampling in environmental epidemiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In environmental epidemiology, exposures are not always available at subject locations and must be predicted using monitoring data. The monitor locations are often outside the control of researchers, and previous studies have shown that "preferential sampling" of monitoring locations can adversely affect exposure prediction and subsequent health effect estimation. We adopt a slightly different definition of preferential sampling than is typically seen in the literature, which we call population-based preferential sampling. Population-based preferential sampling occurs when the location of the monitors is dependent on the subject locations. We show the impact that population-based preferential sampling has on exposure prediction and health effect estimation using analytic results and a simulation study. A simple, one-parameter model is proposed to measure the degree to which monitors are preferentially sampled with respect to population density. We then discuss these concepts in the context of PM2.5 and the EPA Air Quality System monitoring sites, which are generally placed in areas of higher population density to capture the population's exposure.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.051 | 0.193 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".