Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41807470›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2026

UV Index from ERA5 reanalysis.

Sergio Teggi, Sofia Costanzini, Francesca Despini, Mazzoli Riccardo, Tommaso Filippini

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

5 authors.

Sergio TeggiDepartment of Engineering Enzo Ferrari, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via P. Vivarelli 10, Modena, 41125, Italy. Sergio.teggi@unimore.it.
Sofia CostanziniDepartment of Engineering Enzo Ferrari, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via P. Vivarelli 10, Modena, 41125, Italy.
Francesca DespiniDepartment of Engineering Enzo Ferrari, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Via P. Vivarelli 10, Modena, 41125, Italy.
Mazzoli RiccardoEnvironmental, Genetic and Nutritional Epidemiology Research Center (CREAGEN), Section of Public Health, Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Tommaso FilippiniEnvironmental, Genetic and Nutritional Epidemiology Research Center (CREAGEN), Section of Public Health, Department of Biomedical, Metabolic and Neural Sciences, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation significantly impacts human health. Consequently, comprehensive UV climatological databases are of great interest. UV exposure is evaluated by weighting UV spectra with spectral functions that describe physiological responses at each wavelength. The most widely used function is the erythemal weighting function, which is used to compute the UV Index (UVI) to assess the health risk associated with UV overexposure. The ERA5 datasets, produced by the Copernicus Climate Change Service (CDS), offer hourly ground-level UV radiation ([Formula: see text]), but do not include UVI. This study proposes a model to compute hourly UVI using exclusively ERA5 data, enabling direct access through the CDS to derive UVI statistics for locations of interest and potentially supporting the integration of a dedicated UVI product into ERA5. The model was developed using UV spectra simulated under clear-sky conditions with the uvspec radiative transfer model, accounting for atmosphere type, solar zenith angle, visibility, altitude, albedo, total ozone, and aerosol type. For these parameters, representative values typical of tropical, mid-latitude, and subarctic regions were used, effectively excluding Arctic conditions, and considering UVI values ≤ 12. The resulting formulation expresses UVI as a function of [Formula: see text], sun elevation, and total ozone. The model was validated using ground-based UVI measurements from six stations (over 17000 cases) and, in addition, compared with UVI derived from Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service (CAMS) products (over 6000 cases) taken as a reference. Performance was assessed through the statistics of the differences between measured/modelled values and CAMS data under three scenarios: clear-sky conditions, varying cloud cover, and all-sky conditions. Under clear-sky conditions, the model uncertainties showed a small positive bias (≤ 0.5), with the absolute difference (AD) < 1 in 73% of the cases for ground measurements and in 86% of the cases for CAMS. The root mean squared difference (RMS) and the mean absolute deviation (MAD) were 0.9 and 0.7, respectively, for ground measurements, and 0.7 and 0.6 for CAMS. Under cloudy-sky conditions, model performance worsens significantly for CC > 0.4, with RMS and MAD reaching values of about 1.5. However, when considering relative uncertainties (percentage ratio between RMS and reference values of UVI), up to CC < 0.7 the RMS% remains below 15% for Very High-to-Extreme WHO/ICNIRP exposure categories and below 20% for Moderate-to-Extreme categories. A comparison between CAMS UVI and ground measurements was also performed, yielding results consistent with those described above. As an example, Appendix A illustrates how the model can be applied to generate daily and monthly UVI statistics over large geographical areas using only ERA5 data accessed through the CDS web portal.

Identifiers

PMID41807470
PMCPMC13096125

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.