ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Nonlinear health benefits of public green space: evidence from a nationwide machine learning study in China.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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.
- Diagnostic analysis of wellness tourism certification bias and public health resource mismatch.Frontiers in public health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Urban greening is widely recognized as an important factor in human health. However, existing studies have yielded inconsistent conclusions regarding its health benefits, partly due to divergent greening metrics and the prevalent assumption of linear relationships. Methods: This study investigated the associations between three types of urban greening indicators -green cover (GC), general green space (GS), and active public green space (PGS) --and the self-rated physical and mental health of urban residents across China. We matched individual-level health data from the 2020 China Family Panel Studies (CFPS) with county-level greening indicators derived from national statistical yearbooks. To account for potential nonlinearities and to evaluate feature importance, we employed explainable machine learning models (XGBoost) combined with SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP). Results: The results indicated that GC and GS had no significant associations with physical health, and their associations with mental health were inconsistent. In contrast, PGS and the ratio of PGS to GS (PGSRatio) demonstrated robust, significantly positive associations with both physical and mental health, with slightly stronger effects observed for physical health. SHAP-based analyses further revealed nonlinear threshold effects: PGS and PGSRatio offered limited health benefits at lower levels, but their impacts increased sharply once baseline thresholds of 12.4 and 36.3% were exceeded. Ideal health-promoting thresholds were identified at 18% for PGS and 45% for PGSRatio. Discussion: These findings emphasize that not all green space yields equivalent health benefits; rather, the provision of sufficient, accessible, and active public green space is critical for maximizing the dual health benefits of urban greening.
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.