ArticleScientific reports2024
Global population datasets overestimate flood exposure in Sweden.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Scaling and Population Loss in Mexican Urban Centres.Nature communications · 2026Article
- The world's largest cities under climate change and their adaptive capacity to rising heat.Scientific reports · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate population data is crucial for assessing exposure in disaster risk assessments. In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the development of spatially gridded population datasets. Despite these datasets often using similar input data to derive population figures, notable differences arise when comparing them with direct ground-level observations. This study evaluates the precision and accuracy of flood exposure assessments using both known and generated gridded population datasets in Sweden. Specifically focusing on WorldPop and GHSPop, we compare these datasets against official national statistics at a 100 m grid cell resolution to assess their reliability in flood exposure analyses. Our objectives include quantifying the reliability of these datasets and examining the impact of data aggregation on estimated flood exposure across different administrative levels. The analysis reveals significant discrepancies in flood exposure estimates, underscoring the challenges associated with relying on generated gridded population data for precise flood risk assessments. Our findings emphasize the importance of careful dataset selection and highlight the potential for overestimation in flood risk analysis. This emphasises the critical need for validations against ground population data to ensure accurate flood risk management strategies.
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.