ArticlePloS one2020
Using 311 data to develop an algorithm to identify urban blight for public health improvement.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A community case study of pedestrian environment features of neighborhood walkability and built environment-related 311 service requests surrounding public housing developments serving low-income Boston residents.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Advancing equitable and sustainable urban health.Nature medicine · 2025Review
- Training Computers to See the Built Environment Related to Physical Activity: Detection of Microscale Walkability Features Using Computer Vision.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Harmful algal bloom-related 311 calls, Cape Coral, Florida 2018-2019.Journal of water and health · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The growth of administrative data made available publicly, often in near-real time, offers new opportunities for monitoring conditions that impact community health. Urban blight-manifestations of adverse social processes in the urban environment, including physical disorder, decay, and loss of anchor institutions-comprises many conditions considered to negatively affect the health of communities. However, measurement strategies for urban blight have been complicated by lack of uniform data, often requiring expensive street audits or the use of proxy measures that cannot represent the multifaceted nature of blight. This paper evaluates how publicly available data from New York City's 311-call system can be used in a natural language processing approach to represent urban blight across the city with greater geographic and temporal precision. We found that our urban blight algorithm, which includes counts of keywords ('tokens'), resulted in sensitivity ~90% and specificity between 55% and 76%, depending on other covariates in the model. The percent of 311 calls that were 'blight related' at the census tract level were correlated with the most common proxy measure for blight: short, medium, and long-term vacancy rates for commercial and residential buildings. We found the strongest association with long-term (>1 year) commercial vacancies (Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.16, p < 0.001). Our findings indicate the need of further validation, as well as testing algorithms that disambiguate the different facets of urban blight. These facets include physical disorder (e.g., litter, overgrown lawns, or graffiti) and decay (e.g., vacant or abandoned lots or sidewalks in disrepair) that are manifestations of social processes such as (loss of) neighborhood cohesion, social control, collective efficacy, and anchor institutions. More refined measures of urban blight would allow for better targeted remediation efforts and improved community health.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.