ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025
The Development of a New Location-Based Accessibility Measure Based on GPS Data.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accessibility is a key dimension for sustainable transport network management and planning. However, conventional location-based accessibility measures typically rely on average travel times as the sole temporal metric, neglecting detailed travel time distributions. Consequently, these methods yield identical accessibility values for study zones with the same mean travel time but different travel time variations. To overcome this limitation, we developed a novel approach that explicitly integrates the probability density distributions of travel times, modelling the impact of travel time variability on accessibility. We applied the proposed method using GPS data collected from taxis in Harbin, China, and compared its outcomes with those from existing potential accessibility calculations. Across all 103 study zones in Harbin, the existing method underestimated the accessibility by 6-28%, with an average underestimation of 17% when benchmarked against the new method. These inaccuracies also impaired the identification of urban areas with the lowest accessibility levels, leading to the misclassification of 20% of problematic zones. The findings highlight the limitations of existing methods, which produce biassed accessibility estimations and misleading results. In contrast, the proposed travel time variability-integrated accessibility measure demonstrates greater sensitivity to actual traffic conditions, providing a more accurate and objective assessment of network performance.
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.