ArticlePNAS nexus2025
The rebound curve is a poor model of resilience.
Article in PNAS nexus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A metric for quantifying adaptation to successive disruptions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The rebound curve remains the most prevalent model for conceptualizing, measuring, and explaining resilience for engineering and community systems by tracking the functional robustness and recovery of systems over time. (It also goes by many names, including the resilience curve, the resilience triangle, and the system functionality curve, among others.) Despite longstanding recognition that resilience is more than rebound, the curve remains highly used, cited, and taught. In this article, we challenge the efficacy of this model for resilience and identify fundamental shortcomings in how it handles system function, time, dynamics, and decisions - the key elements that make up the curve. These oversimplifications reinforce misconceptions about resilience that are unhelpful for understanding complex systems and are potentially dangerous for guiding decisions. We argue that models of resilience should abandon the use of this curve and instead be reframed to open new lines of inquiry that center on improving adaptive capacity in complex systems, rather than on functional rebound. We provide a list of questions to help future researchers communicate these limitations and address any implications on recommendations derived from its use.
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.