Model-estimated air pollution exposure assessments have been extensively employed in the evaluation of health risks associated with air pollution. However, few studies synthetically evaluate the reliability of model-estimated PM products in health risk assessment by comparing them with ground-based monitoring station air quality data. In response to this gap, we undertook a meticulously structured systematic review and meta-analysis. Our objective was to aggregate existing comparative studies to ascertain the disparity in mortality effect estimates derived from model-estimated ambient PM exposure versus those based on monitoring station-observed PM exposure. We conducted searches across multiple databases, namely PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, using predefined keywords. Ultimately, ten studies were included in the review. Of these, seven investigated long-term annual exposure, while the remaining three studies focused on short-term daily PM exposure. Despite variances in the estimated Exposure-Response (E-R) associations, most studies revealed positive associations between ambient PM exposure and all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, irrespective of the exposure being estimated through models or observed at monitoring stations. Our meta-analysis revealed that all-cause mortality risk associated with model-estimated PM exposure was in line with that derived from station-observed sources. The pooled Relative Risk (RR) was 1.083 (95% CI: 1.047, 1.119) for model-estimated exposure, and 1.089 (95% CI: 1.054, 1.125) for station-observed sources (p = 0.795). In conclusion, most model-estimated air pollution products have demonstrated consistency in estimating mortality risk compared to data from monitoring stations. However, only a limited number of studies have undertaken such comparative analyses, underscoring the necessity for more comprehensive investigations to validate the reliability of these model-estimated exposure in mortality risk assessment.

中文翻译：

---

在死亡风险评估中，模型估计的 PM2.5 暴露量是否等同于站点观测的暴露量？文献综述和荟萃分析

模型估计的空气污染暴露评估已广泛应用于评估与空气污染相关的健康风险。然而，很少有研究通过与地面监测站空气质量数据进行比较来综合评估模型估计的PM产品在健康风险评估中的可靠性。针对这一差距，我们进行了精心构建的系统回顾和荟萃分析。我们的目标是汇总现有的比较研究，以确定根据模型估计的环境 PM 暴露与基于监测站观测的 PM 暴露得出的死亡率影响估计之间的差异。我们使用预定义的关键字在多个数据库（即 PubMed、Scopus 和 Web of Science）中进行搜索。最终，十项研究被纳入审查。其中，七项研究调查了长期的年度暴露，而其余三项研究则侧重于短期的每日 PM 暴露。尽管估计的暴露-反应 (ER) 关联存在差异，但大多数研究表明，环境 PM 暴露与全因死亡率和心血管死亡率之间存在正相关关系，无论暴露量是通过模型估计还是在监测站观察到的。我们的荟萃分析显示，与模型估计的 PM 暴露相关的全因死亡风险与站观测来源得出的结果一致。模型估计暴露的汇总相对风险 (RR) 为 1.083 (95% CI: 1.047, 1.119)，站观测源的汇总相对风险 (RR) 为 1.089 (95% CI: 1.054, 1.125) (p = 0.795)。总之，与监测站的数据相比，大多数模型估计的空气污染产品在估计死亡风险方面表现出一致性。然而，只有少数研究进行了此类比较分析，这强调了进行更全面的调查以验证这些模型估计暴露在死亡风险评估中的可靠性的必要性。