ArticleGeoHealth2020
Human Vulnerability to Landslides.
Article in GeoHealth, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Emergency medical rescue in debris flow disaster.American journal of medicine open · 2026Review
- Attention driven deep convolutional network with optimized learning for accurate landslide detection and monitoring.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Monitoring strain evolution in water-sand systems using distributed acoustic sensing for geohazard early warning.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- MMMethodsX · 2025Article
- Overcoming the data limitations in landslide susceptibility modeling.Science advances · 2025Article
- Article
- Individual risk evaluation for landslides: key details.Landslides · 2022Article
- Human Vulnerability to Landslides.GeoHealth · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Landslides pose a devastating threat to human health, killing thousands of people annually. Human vulnerability is a crucial element of landslide risk reduction, yet up until now, all methods for estimating the human consequences of landslides rely on subjective, expert judgment. Furthermore, these methods do not explore the underlying causes of mortality or inform strategies to reduce landslide risk. In light of these issues, we develop a data-driven tool to estimate an individual's probability of death based on landslide intensity, which can be used directly in landslide risk assessment. We find that between inundation depths of approximately 1-6 m, human behavior is the primary driver of mortality. Landslide vulnerability is strongly correlated with the economic development of a region, but landslide losses are not stratified by gender and age to the degree of other natural hazards. We observe that relatively simple actions, such as moving to an upper floor or a prepared refuge space, increase the odds of survival by up to a factor of 12. Additionally, community-scale hazard awareness programs and training for citizen first responders offer a potent means to maximize survival rates in landslides.
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.