ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Spatial indices quantifying exposure to swine farming in North Carolina.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Introduction: Proximity to swine farms is often used as a surrogate in exposure assessments, allowing for the relative quantification of potential pollutant dispersion, odor intensity, and health impacts on neighboring communities. However, defining exposure is complex, and the resulting risk profiles can vary depending on the definition used. Methods: To quantify the spatially based exposure of surrounding communities to swine farms in North Carolina, three spatially explicit metrics were developed at the census tract-level: IDx1: number of households within 1-mile from a hog farm, IDx2: Co-kriging using the number of hogs and manure lagoons, and IDx3: hog density per square mile. Then, the correlation between these indices and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)'s Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) and Environmental Justice Index (EJI), which are generalized vulnerability measures, was evaluated to assess direct impact from swine farms versus multiple stressors. Results: The three indices differed visually, with IDx3 strongly correlated with IDx1 (0.8) and moderately correlated with IDx2 (0.4). CDC EJI and SVI were not prominently correlated with any of the swine-farm specific indices (≤0.3) indicating limited overlap. The correlation between swine-farm-specific indices and CDC SVI was slightly pronounced in rural areas indicating socially vulnerable populations are more likely to live near swine farming areas in rural census tracts. Having swine farm-specific indices offers a more tailored and nuanced understanding of the potential health and environmental risks. However, the differences between the maps and the varying correlations underscored how different definitions of exposure can yield distinct narratives about which neighborhoods are at risk. Defining and measuring potential exposure, considering factors like proximity, duration, frequency, vulnerability, and cumulative impact, is highly challenging. Discussion: The study emphasizes the need for a hierarchical framework to quantify and compare environmental exposures, addressing risk-modifying factors and individual-level exposure across space and time before implying direct exposure risks. This approach enables more informed planning for targeted solutions and fosters collaboration among stakeholders, facilitating critical discussions on integrated One Health solutions.
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.