↓ Skip to main content

Current Methods and Challenges for Epidemiological Studies of the Associations Between Chemical Constituents of Particulate Matter and Health

Overview of attention for article published in Current Environmental Health Reports, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
26 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Current Methods and Challenges for Epidemiological Studies of the Associations Between Chemical Constituents of Particulate Matter and Health
Published in
Current Environmental Health Reports, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s40572-015-0071-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jenna R. Krall, Howard H. Chang, Stefanie Ebelt Sarnat, Roger D. Peng, Lance A. Waller

Abstract

Epidemiological studies have been critical for estimating associations between exposure to ambient particulate matter (PM) air pollution and adverse health outcomes. Because total PM mass is a temporally and spatially varying mixture of constituents with different physical and chemical properties, recent epidemiological studies have focused on PM constituents. Most studies have estimated associations between PM constituents and health using the same statistical methods as in studies of PM mass. However, these approaches may not be sufficient to address challenges specific to studies of PM constituents, namely assigning exposure, disentangling health effects, and handling measurement error. We reviewed large, population-based epidemiological studies of PM constituents and health and describe the statistical methods typically applied to address these challenges. Development of statistical methods that simultaneously address multiple challenges, for example, both disentangling health effects and handling measurement error, could improve estimation of associations between PM constituents and adverse health outcomes.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 1%
France 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 64 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 21%
Student > Master 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 11 16%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 16 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Engineering 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Other 16 24%
Unknown 14 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 January 2023.
All research outputs
#2,713,968
of 23,530,272 outputs
Outputs from Current Environmental Health Reports
#99
of 331 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,600
of 274,721 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Environmental Health Reports
#6
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,530,272 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 331 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 274,721 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.