ArticleLandslides2022
Individual risk evaluation for landslides: key details.
Article in Landslides, 2022. 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.
- MMMethodsX · 2025Article
- Landslide hazard assessment of an urban agglomeration in central Guizhou Province based on an information value method and SVM, bagging, DNN algorithm.Scientific reports · 2025Article
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
Risk-taking is an essential part of life. As individuals, we evaluate risks intuitively and often subconsciously by comparing the perceived risks with expected benefits. We do this so commonly that it passes unnoticed, like when we decide to speed home from work or go for a swim. The comparison changes, however, when one entity (such as a government) imposes a risk evaluation on another person. For example, in a quantitative risk management framework, the estimated risk is compared with a tolerable risk threshold to decide if the person is 'safe enough'. Landslide risk management methods are well established and there is consensus on tolerable life-loss risk thresholds. However, beneath this consensus lie several key details that are explored by this article, along with suggestions for refinement. Specifically, we suggest using the risk unit, micromort (one micromort equals a life loss risk of 1 in 1 million), in describing risk estimates and thresholds, to improve risk communication. For risk estimation, we provide guidance for defining and combining landslide scenarios and for recognizing where unquantified risk from low-probability/high-consequence scenarios ought to inform risk management decisions. For risk tolerance thresholds, we highlight the pitfalls of selecting unachievably low thresholds and suggest that there is no single universal threshold. Additionally, we argue that
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.