Table 4 CIMT* difference (μm) for pollutant IQR increases by analysis model and exposure estimation approach
| Â | PM2.5* | EC* | OC* | Silicon | Sulfur |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | CIMT difference (95% CI) | CIMT difference (95% CI) | CIMT difference (95% CI) | CIMT difference (95% CI) | CIMT difference (95% CI) |
Model 1** | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
   Nearest Monitor | 13.7 (8.0,19.5) | 8.2 (2.2,14.2) | 36.5 (28.3,44.7) | 3.1 (−11.9,18.0) | 22.6 (14.9,30.2) |
   IDW | 8.8 (4.8,12.7) | 4.8 (0.0,9.5) | 25.4 (19.9,30.8) | −0.6 (−10.2,9.0) | 23.8 (15.8,31.8) |
   City-Wide Average | 7.6 (3.7,11.3) | 2.6 (−1.9,7.1) | 21.3 (16.4,26.2) | −0.2 (−9.9,9.5) | 22.9 (14.8,31.0) |
Model 2** | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
   Nearest Monitor | 14.7 (9.0,20.5) | 9.6 (3.6,15.7) | 35.1 (26.8,43.3) | 5.2 (−9.8,20.1) | 22.7 (15.0,30.4) |
   IDW | 9.6 (5.7,13.5) | 6.0 (1.3,10.8) | 24.9 (19.4,30.3) | 1.3 (−8.3,10.9) | 24.0 (16.0,32.0) |
   City-Wide Average | 8.5 (4.7,12.3) | 3.9 (−0.5,8.4) | 20.6 (15.7,25.5) | 1.8 (−7.9,11.4) | 23.3 (15.2,31.4) |
Model 3** | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
   Nearest Monitor | 15.8 (9.9,21.7) | 10.8 (4.6,16.9) | 36.5 (28.0,44.9) | 7.3 (−8.0,22.5) | 23.9 (16.0,31.7) |
   IDW | 10.6 (6.5,14.6) | 7.2 (2.3,12.0) | 26.9 (21.2,32.6) | 2.4 (−7.4,12.2) | 25.4 (17.2,33.5) |
   City-Wide Average | 9.6 (5.7,13.5) | 5.0 (0.4,9.6) | 21.8 (16.7,26.9) | 2.8 (−7.1,12.7) | 24.8 (16.5,33.1) |
Model 4** | Â | Â | Â | Â | Â |
   Nearest Monitor | 5.9 (−10.3,22.0) | 6.3 (−11.4,23.8) | −2.3 (−26.2,21.5) | −10.1 (−41.0,20.6) | 27.4 (−19.3,73.8) |
   IDW | 6.0 (−9.8,21.8) | 12.1 (−11.0,35.0) | *** | −8.5 (−47.2,30.0) | *** |