Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28885979›Full record

ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2017

Adaptation to Climate Change: A Comparative Analysis of Modeling Methods for Heat-Related Mortality.

Simon N Gosling, David M Hondula, Aditi Bunker, Dolores Ibarreta, Junguo Liu, Xinxin Zhang, Rainer Sauerborn

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Environmental health perspectives, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 125 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Heat-Related Mortality in Germany From 1992 to 2021.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 5 countries.

Simon N GoslingSchool of Geography, University of Nottingham , Nottingham, United Kingdom.
David M HondulaSchool of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University , Tempe, Arizona, USA.
Aditi BunkerNetwork Aging Research, University of Heidelberg , Heidelberg, Germany.
Dolores IbarretaEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Seville, Spain.
Junguo LiuSchool of Environmental Science and Engineering, South University of Science and Technology of China, Shenzhen, China.
Xinxin ZhangSchool of Nature Conservation, Beijing Forestry University , Beijing, China.
Rainer SauerbornInstitute of Public Health, University of Heidelberg , Heidelberg, Germany.
Heidelberg University · DEArizona State University · USBeijing Forestry University · CNJoint Research Center · ESSouthern University of Science and Technology · CNUniversity of Nottingham · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMultiple methods are employed for modeling adaptation when projecting the impact of climate change on heat-related mortality. The sensitivity of impacts to each is unknown because they have never been systematically compared. In addition, little is known about the relative sensitivity of impacts to "adaptation uncertainty" (i.e., the inclusion/exclusion of adaptation modeling) relative to using multiple climate models and emissions scenarios.

objectivesThis study had three aims:

methodsWe estimated impacts for 2070-2099 for 14 European cities, applying six different methods for modeling adaptation; we also estimated impacts with five climate models run under two emissions scenarios to explore the relative effects of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.

resultsThe range of the difference (percent) in impacts between including and excluding adaptation, irrespective of climate modeling and emissions uncertainty, can be as low as 28% with one method and up to 103% with another (mean across 14 cities). In 13 of 14 cities, the ranges in projected impacts due to adaptation uncertainty are larger than those associated with climate modeling and emissions uncertainty.

conclusionsResearchers should carefully consider how to model adaptation because it is a source of uncertainty that can be greater than the uncertainty in emissions and climate modeling. We recommend absolute threshold shifts and reductions in slope. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP634.

Indexed as

Climate ChangeHot TemperatureAcclimatizationAdaptation, PhysiologicalCitiesForecastingHumansModels, TheoreticalMortality

Identifiers

PMID28885979
PMCPMC5783656
OpenAlexW2560821947

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.