ArticleEnvironmental health perspectives2025
Advancing extreme heat risk assessments to better capture individually-experienced temperatures: A new approach to describe individual and subgroup vulnerabilities.
Article in Environmental health perspectives, 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.
- Data Considerations for Estimating Ambient Heat Exposure for Environmental Epidemiological Studies.Current environmental health reports · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundExtreme heat risk assessments often rely on epidemiologic studies that used the nearest available outdoor airport temperatures (OATs) rather than individually-experienced temperatures (IETs) and frequently lack key individual-level determinants of exposure, including occupation, housing, and air conditioning. This hampers efforts to characterize heat burden inequities and guide interventions for vulnerable populations.
objectivesWe developed an approach to estimate individual and subgroup-specific health impacts from modeled IETs before and during extreme heat events for three U.S. cities: Atlanta, Georgia (hot-humid), Detroit, Michigan (temperate), and Phoenix, Arizona (hot-dry).
methodsIET profiles were estimated using modeled parcel-linked population microdata, housing-specific indoor temperatures from building energy models, ambient temperatures from urban-scale climate models, and time activity patterns from surveys. We linked each IET profile to daily OATs, then fit mixed-effects regressions to predict "equivalent" OATs (eOATs), based on IET, housing, and demographics. We assigned risk ratios (RRs) from existing literature on all-cause mortality, all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, and preterm births to each person-day's eOAT and estimated 5-day-extreme-heat absolute risks (ARs) by age-race-income-occupation subgroup.
resultsThe eOATs, RRs, and ARs differed between people due to variability in IETs and baseline health outcome incidence rates. All-cause mortality RRs ranges were 1.00-1.16 (Atlanta), 1.01-7.08 (Detroit), and 1.00-6.38 (Phoenix). All-cause-mortality ARs ranged 0.01-32 (Atlanta), 0.01-1,100 (Detroit), and 0.01-950 (Phoenix) per 100,000 persons. ED visit ARs ranges were 0.2-270 (Atlanta) and 0.04-6,200 (Phoenix) per 100,000 persons. Heat mortality ARs were higher among older adults and, only in Detroit, in young, Black, outdoor workers (median = 6.6 per 100,000) compared to young, non-Black, higher-income, indoor workers (median = 0.3 per 100,000). DISCUSSION: When IETs can be estimated or directly measured, person-specific eOATs can be used to estimate the subgroup-specific heat-health burdens that would be experienced without adaptive behaviors. This approach could be adapted for other contexts to inform climate preparedness and justice policies. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15223.
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.