ArticleScientific reports2020
Monitoring soil radon during the 2016-2017 central Italy sequence in light of seismicity.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Soil Radon Time Series from the Italian Radon Monitoring Network (IRON).Scientific data · 2025Article
- Active Monitoring of Residential Radon in Rome: A Pilot Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The radioactive nature of radon makes it a powerful tracer for fluid movements in the crust, and a potentially effective marker to study processes connected with earthquakes preparatory phase. To explore the feasibility of using soil radon variations as earthquakes precursor, we analyse the radon concentration data recorded by two stations located close to the epicentre of the strongest mainshock (Mw 6.5 on October 30, 2016) of the seismic sequence which affected central Italy from August 2016. The two stations CTTR and NRCA operate in the framework of the permanent Italian Radon monitoring Network and recorded almost continuously since 2012 and 2016, respectively, the latter being installed just after the first mainshock of the sequence (Mw 6.0 on August 24, 2016). An increase of radon emanation is clearly visible about 2 weeks before the Mw 6.5 event on both the time series, more pronounced on NRCA, nearer to the epicentre, suggesting the possibility of a direct association with the earthquake occurrence. An independently developed detection algorithm aimed at highlighting the connections between radon emission variations and major earthquakes occurrence succeeds in forecasting the Mw 6.5 mainshock on NRCA time series. The resulting time advance of the alarm is consistent with that obtained using a Bayesian approach to compute the a posteriori probability of multiple change points on the radon time series of NRCA. Moreover, it is in agreement with the delay time which maximizes the correlation between radon and seismic anomalies. Applying the detection algorithm to CTTR time series returns alarms for both the Mw 6.0 event, with epicentre closer to this station, and the stronger Mw 6.5 event, but with a higher number of false detections. Finally, we found that a preliminary correction of the bias introduced by variations of meteorological parameters does not affect our main finding of an increase in radon concentration before the major mainshocks. Our study confirms that, although much work is still needed, a monitoring approach based on a permanent dense network is crucial for making radon time series analysis an effective complement to traditional seismological tools.
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.