Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37809821›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2023

Exploring the spatial pattern of community urban green spaces and COVID-19 risk in Wuhan based on a random forest model.

Wenpei Li, Fei Dai, Jessica Ann Diehl, Ming Chen, Jincheng Bai

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 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

5 authors.

Wenpei LiDepartment of Architecture, College of Design and Engineering, National University of Singapore, 117566, Singapore.
Fei DaiSchool of Architecture & Urban Planning, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, PR China.
Jessica Ann DiehlDepartment of Architecture, College of Design and Engineering, National University of Singapore, 117566, Singapore.
Ming ChenSchool of Architecture & Urban Planning, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, 430074, PR China.
Jincheng BaiN/A, Allen, TX, 75013, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Since 2019, COVID-19 has triggered a renewed investigation of the urban environment and disease outbreak. While the results have been inconsistent, it has been observed that the quantity of urban green spaces (UGS) is correlated with the risk of COVID-19. However, the spatial pattern has largely been ignored, especially on the community scale. In high-density communities where it is difficult to increase UGS quantity, UGS spatial pattern could be a crucial predictive variable. Thus, this study investigated the relative contribution of quantity and spatial patterns of UGS on COVID-19 risk at the community scale using a random forest (RF) regression model based on (n = 44) communities in Wuhan. Findings suggested that 8 UGS indicators can explain 35% of the risk of COVID-19, and the four spatial pattern metrics that contributed most were core, edge, loop, and branch whereas UGS quantity contributed least. The potential mechanisms between UGS and COVID-19 are discussed, including the influence of UGS on residents' social distance and environmental factors in the community. This study offers a new perspective on optimizing UGS for public health and sustainable city design to combat pandemics and inspire future research on the specific relationship between UGS spatial patterns and pandemics and therefore help establish mechanisms of UGS and pandemics.

Indexed as

COVID-19Machine learningRandom forestRelative importanceUrban green spaces

Identifiers

PMID37809821
PMCPMC10559124

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.