Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41554850›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

Spatiotemporal assessment of multi hazard risk using graph based analysis for case studies in India.

Hari Chandana Ekkirala, Maneesha Vinodini Ramesh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hari Chandana EkkiralaAmrita School for Sustainable Futures, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, India.
Maneesha Vinodini RameshAmrita School for Sustainable Futures, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Amritapuri, India. maneesha@amrita.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the years, India has experienced numerous rainfall-triggered landslides that initiate complex multi-hazard events, resulting in substantial human loss. This study presents a graph-based risk assessment of multi-hazards for two case studies in India: The South Lhonak Lake Glacial Lake Outburst Flood which impacted North Sikkim in October 2023 and the Wayanad Landslides in July 2024, which collectively claimed over 600 lives. This is achieved through a multidimensional methodology which integrates dynamic rainfall and discharge thresholds, stakeholder-informed hazard sequences, spatiotemporal hazard progression, and elements at risk. Heterogeneous data sources including remote sensing, field surveys, hydro-meteorological observations, and gray literature such as government reports and official situation bulletins, are synthesized to construct weighted, directed hazard networks. Graph-theory metrics, including degree centrality, betweenness centrality, and cascade depth, are used to compute sub-basin-level risk scores. Results highlighted critical sequences present in both regions, particularly the transition from extreme rainfall to landslides and subsequent flooding. Also, they identified high-risk zones influenced by both topography and infrastructure exposure. The findings emphasize the need for real-time threshold monitoring and alert systems, hazard-sequence-based operational protocols, and spatiotemporally phased response planning to support coordinated evacuations and early warning. The proposed framework offers actionable guidance for dynamic risk monitoring and multi-hazard governance in vulnerable mountain ecosystems.

Indexed as

Hazard impactMulti-hazard sequencesRainfall-Triggered landslidesSpatiotemporal progression

Identifiers

PMID41554850
PMCPMC12894674

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.