Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Bias in Epidemiological Studies01:29

Bias in Epidemiological Studies

Biases can arise at various stages of research, from study design and data collection to analysis and interpretation. Recognizing and addressing these biases is essential to ensure the validity and reliability of epidemiological findings.Broadly speaking, biases in epidemiology fall into three main categories: selection bias, information bias, and confounding. A more detailed description of possible biases is:
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Common Leveling Mistakes and Errors01:17

Common Leveling Mistakes and Errors

A survey team is tasked with determining the elevation difference between points Point A and Point B, separated by uneven terrain. They use a leveling instrument and a leveling rod.Common MistakesMisreading the Rod: During a backsight reading at Point A, the instrumentman observes the rod partially obscured by tall grass. Instead of reading 1.135 m, they mistakenly record 1.735 m due to the misalignment of the crosshair with the wrong graduation. This error adds 0.600 m to all subsequent...
Confounding in Epidemiological Studies01:27

Confounding in Epidemiological Studies

Confounding in statistical epidemiology represents a pivotal challenge, referring to the distortion in the perceived relationship between an exposure and an outcome due to the presence of a third variable, known as a confounder. This variable is associated with both the exposure and the outcome but is not a direct link in their causal chain. Its presence can lead to erroneous interpretations of the exposure's effect, either exaggerating or underestimating the true association. This phenomenon...
Errors in Taping01:18

Errors in Taping

Errors in taping arise from multiple factors that can significantly impact measurement accuracy in surveying. Misalignment of the tape, often due to human error, is one primary source. A skilled rear tapeman, using a telescope, can help correct alignment by guiding the head tapeman; however, human limitations still lead to small inaccuracies. These errors may include misplacement of pins or inaccurate tape readings due to common visual confusions, such as mistaking a six for a nine. Such...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Assessing global factors associated with tropical cyclone-related mortality: A population-based longitudinal study.

Environment international·2026
Same author

Minimum mortality temperature by cause of death and age group: A multi-country observational study (1990-2019).

Environmental research·2026
Same author

Clinical Aspects and Molecular Mechanisms of Cognitive Dysfunction in Children and Adolescents with Type 1 Diabetes.

Children (Basel, Switzerland)·2026
Same author

Correction: Societal Attitudes Towards Autism (SATA): Validation of the Greek Version in the General Population.

Journal of autism and developmental disorders·2026
Same author

Associations of ambient exposure to benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene with daily mortality: a multicountry time-series study in 757 global locations.

Annual review of environment and resources·2025
Same author

Associations of ambient exposure to benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene with daily mortality: a multicountry time-series study in 757 global locations.

The Lancet. Planetary health·2025

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 28, 2026

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study
09:36

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study

Published on: February 2, 2017

Measurement error caused by spatial misalignment in environmental epidemiology.

Alexandros Gryparis1, Christopher J Paciorek, Ariana Zeka

  • 1Department of Biostatistics, Harvard University, Boston, MA 02115, USA. alexandros@post.harvard.edu

Biostatistics (Oxford, England)
|October 18, 2008
PubMed
Summary

Environmental epidemiology studies face challenges when exposure measurements and health data are misaligned. This research offers a spatial measurement error modeling framework, comparing various methods for health effects analysis, with findings applicable to real-world environmental health data.

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 28, 2026

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study
09:36

Assessment of Child Anthropometry in a Large Epidemiologic Study

Published on: February 2, 2017

Area of Science:

  • Environmental Epidemiology
  • Spatial Statistics
  • Biostatistics

Background:

  • Environmental epidemiology studies often lack precise spatial and temporal alignment between exposure measurements and health assessments.
  • Exposure models used in health analyses introduce measurement error, as predicted values differ from true exposures.
  • Spatial smoothing in exposure models can induce Berkson-type measurement error with a nondiagonal structure.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To develop a spatial measurement error modeling framework for environmental epidemiology.
  • To review and compare existing and modified estimation approaches for health effects models using spatial exposure predictions.
  • To extend these methods to generalized linear models for various health outcomes.

Main Methods:

  • Developed a framework for spatial measurement error modeling, identifying smoothing-induced error structures.
  • Reviewed existing methods: direct use of spatial predictions and exposure simulation.
  • Explored modified approaches: Bayesian models and out-of-sample regression calibration.
  • Extended analysis to generalized linear models.
  • Conducted analytical comparisons and simulation studies under various spatial exposure models.

Main Results:

  • Exposure simulation can yield poor performance in certain realistic scenarios.
  • The effectiveness of different methods is contingent on the characteristics of the spatial exposure surface.
  • Traditional measurement error concepts effectively explain the comparative performance of the methods.
  • Applied methods to analyze particulate matter levels and birth weight in the Boston area.

Conclusions:

  • The choice of method for handling spatial measurement error in environmental epidemiology is critical and depends on exposure surface properties.
  • Understanding measurement error structures is key to selecting appropriate analytical techniques.
  • The developed framework and comparative analysis provide guidance for robust health effects estimation in spatially misaligned exposure data.