Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37957476›Full record

ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2024

Global Research on Natural Disasters and Human Health: a Mapping Study Using Natural Language Processing Techniques.

Xin Ye, Hugo Lin

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current environmental health reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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.

Xin YeInstitute for Global Public Policy; LSE-Fudan Research Centre for Global Public Policy, Fudan University, 220 Handan Road, Yangpu District, Shanghai, 200433, China. yexin@fudan.edu.cn.
Hugo LinCentraleSupélec, Paris-Saclay University, 91192, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review aimed to systematically synthesize the global evidence base for natural disasters and human health using natural language processing (NLP) techniques. RECENT

findingsWe searched Embase, PubMed, Scopus, PsycInfo, and Web of Science Core Collection, using titles, abstracts, and keywords, and included only literature indexed in English. NLP techniques, including text classification, topic modeling, and geoparsing methods, were used to systematically identify and map scientific literature on natural disasters and human health published between January 1, 2012, and April 3, 2022. We predicted 6105 studies in the area of natural disasters and human health. Earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis were the most frequent nature disasters; posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression were the most frequently studied health outcomes; mental health services were the most common way of coping. Geographically, the evidence base was dominated by studies from high-income countries. Co-occurrence of natural disasters and psychological distress was common. Psychological distress was one of the top three most frequent topics in all continents except Africa, where infectious diseases was the most prevalent topic. Our findings demonstrated the importance and feasibility of using NLP to comprehensively map natural disasters and human health in the growing literature. The review identifies clear topics for future clinical and public health research and can provide an empirical basis for reducing the negative health effects of natural disasters.

Indexed as

Cyclonic StormsNatural DisastersAfricaCoping SkillsHumansNatural Language ProcessingHealthNatural disastersNatural language processing

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.