ArticlePloS one2024
Unraveling the causes of the Seoul Halloween crowd-crush disaster.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Preventive Measures and Crowd Management Strategies to Mitigate the Risk of Stampedes in Public Gatherings: A Systematic Review.Public health reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Assessing health risks and preparedness strategies in mass-gathering religious events: a retrospective observational study.BMC emergency medicine · 2025Observational
- Dense Crowd Dynamics and Pedestrian Trajectories: A Multiscale Field Dataset from the Festival of Lights in Lyon.Scientific data · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the world steadily recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic, managing large gatherings becomes a critical concern for ensuring crowd safety. The crowd-crush disaster in Seoul in 2022 highlights the need for effective predictive crowd management techniques. In this study, an empirical analysis of this incident is conducted using data from various sources, and model-based simulations are created to replicate hazardous crowd conditions in high-risk areas. In the empirical analysis, mobile device data indicates a significant increase in population above normal levels in the disaster area just hours before the incident occurred. In the simulations, a hydrodynamic model is employed to simulate a bidirectional collision, which quantitatively demonstrates that the average density during the crush reached 7.57 ped/m2 (with a maximum of (9.95)ped/m2). Additionally, the average crowd pressure peaked at 1,063 N/m (with a maximum of 1,961 N/m), and the maximum velocity entropy was 10.99. Based on these findings, it can be concluded that the primary causes of the disaster were the substantial population, bidirectional collision, and escalating panic. The results of controlled simulations under various management strategies are then presented. By implementing effective crowd management techniques, crowd safety can be enhanced through quantitative comparisons of these key indicators.
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.