Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38110246›Full record

ReviewCold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology2024

An Agrigenomics Trifecta: Greenhouse Gas Drawdown, Food Security, and New Drugs.

Charles DeLisi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cold Spring Harbor perspectives in biology, 2024. 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

1 author.

Charles DeLisiCollege of Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Massachusetts 02215, USA Delisi@bu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

An abundance of data, including decades of greenhouse gas (GHG) emission rates, atmospheric concentrations, and global average temperatures, is sufficient to allow a strictly empirical evaluation of the U.S. plan for controlling GHGs. This article presents an analysis, based solely on such data, that shows that the difference between atmospheric GHG levels that will be reached if current trends continue, and levels that would be achieved if the goals of the plan are met-even with worldwide implementation-is inconsequential. Further, the expected globally averaged temperature differences are well within measurement error. The results lend additional support to the argument that any mitigation strategy must include drawdown of atmospheric GHGs. Equally important, a particular drawdown strategy, agrigenomics, offers the opportunity for a revolutionary trifecta: climate change mitigation, food security, and medical advances.

Indexed as

Climate ChangeFood SecurityGreenhouse GasesHumansUnited StatesGreenhouse Gases

Identifiers

PMID38110246
PMCPMC11368179

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.