Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37622101›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in big data2023

Proliferation of atmospheric datasets can hinder policy making: a data blending technique offers a solution.

Hamish Steptoe, Theo Economou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in big data, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Hamish SteptoeMet Office, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Theo EconomouClimate and Atmosphere Research Centre (CARE-C), The Cyprus Institute, Nicosia, Cyprus.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The proliferation of atmospheric datasets is a key outcome from the continued development and advancement of our collective scientific understanding. Yet often datasets describing ostensibly identical processes or atmospheric variables provide widely varying results. As an example, we analyze several datasets representing rainfall over Nepal. We show that estimates of extreme rainfall are highly variable depending on which dataset you choose to look at. This leads to confusion and inaction from policy-focused decision makers. Scientifically, we should use datasets that sample a range of creation methodologies and prioritize the use of data science techniques that have the flexibility to incorporate these multiple sources of data. We demonstrate the use of a statistically interpretable data blending technique to help discern and communicate a consensus result, rather than imposing a priori judgment on the choice of dataset, for the benefit of policy decision making.

Indexed as

data blendingdata sciencedecision makingGeneralized Additive ModelsNepalprecipitationstatistics

Identifiers

PMID37622101
PMCPMC10446837

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.