↓ Skip to main content

Accuracy of two geocoding methods for geographic information system-based exposure assessment in epidemiological studies

Overview of attention for article published in Environmental Health, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Accuracy of two geocoding methods for geographic information system-based exposure assessment in epidemiological studies
Published in
Environmental Health, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12940-017-0217-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Elodie Faure, Aurélie M.N. Danjou, Françoise Clavel-Chapelon, Marie-Christine Boutron-Ruault, Laure Dossus, Béatrice Fervers

Abstract

Environmental exposure assessment based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and study participants' residential proximity to environmental exposure sources relies on the positional accuracy of subjects' residences to avoid misclassification bias. Our study compared the positional accuracy of two automatic geocoding methods to a manual reference method. We geocoded 4,247 address records representing the residential history (1990-2008) of 1,685 women from the French national E3N cohort living in the Rhône-Alpes region. We compared two automatic geocoding methods, a free-online geocoding service (method A) and an in-house geocoder (method B), to a reference layer created by manually relocating addresses from method A (method R). For each automatic geocoding method, positional accuracy levels were compared according to the urban/rural status of addresses and time-periods (1990-2000, 2001-2008), using Chi Square tests. Kappa statistics were performed to assess agreement of positional accuracy of both methods A and B with the reference method, overall, by time-periods and by urban/rural status of addresses. Respectively 81.4% and 84.4% of addresses were geocoded to the exact address (65.1% and 61.4%) or to the street segment (16.3% and 23.0%) with methods A and B. In the reference layer, geocoding accuracy was higher in urban areas compared to rural areas (74.4% vs. 10.5% addresses geocoded to the address or interpolated address level, p < 0.0001); no difference was observed according to the period of residence. Compared to the reference method, median positional errors were 0.0 m (IQR = 0.0-37.2 m) and 26.5 m (8.0-134.8 m), with positional errors <100 m for 82.5% and 71.3% of addresses, for method A and method B respectively. Positional agreement of method A and method B with method R was 'substantial' for both methods, with kappa coefficients of 0.60 and 0.61 for methods A and B, respectively. Our study demonstrates the feasibility of geocoding residential addresses in epidemiological studies not initially recorded for environmental exposure assessment, for both recent addresses and residence locations more than 20 years ago. Accuracy of the two automatic geocoding methods was comparable. The in-house method (B) allowed a better control of the geocoding process and was less time consuming.

Twitter Demographics

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

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 66 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 20%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 8%
Lecturer 4 6%
Other 13 20%
Unknown 13 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 15%
Engineering 8 12%
Computer Science 7 11%
Environmental Science 6 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Other 14 21%
Unknown 17 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 20 August 2021.
All research outputs
#12,398,890
of 19,441,086 outputs
Outputs from Environmental Health
#1,003
of 1,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,648
of 273,246 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Environmental Health
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,441,086 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,382 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 29.0. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 273,246 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them