Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42545994›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Quantifying uncertainty due to sampling error in a social vulnerability index: A Monte Carlo approach.

Jawata A Saba, Kevin D Ash

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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.

Jawata A SabaDepartment of Geography, University of Florida, GainesvilleFlorida, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-5361-604X
Kevin D AshDepartment of Geography, University of Florida, GainesvilleFlorida, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4231-2112

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Social vulnerability indices are widely used to assess communities' relative vulnerability to environmental hazards. However, existing social vulnerability indices, including the CDC's Social Vulnerability Index (CDC SVI), rely on deterministic scores that do not account for uncertainty from sampling error in American Community Survey (ACS) data. This study introduces SVI-MC, a probabilistic approach that leverages 10,000 Monte Carlo simulations to quantify aleatoric uncertainty in the SVI. Our method embeds sampling variability directly into index calculations, producing uncertainty aware composite vulnerability estimates. Results from eight southeastern U.S. states using census tract level data reveal that Theme 2 (Household Characteristics) exhibits the highest uncertainty, while Theme 3 (Race & Ethnicity) is the most stable. Rural, mountainous, and coastal areas display greater classification instability, while urban tracts are generally more stable. Additionally, we introduce an entropy-based measure that complements coefficients of variation (CVs) by capturing instability in categorical rankings. Comparisons with the CDC SVI show that while 68% of tracts align in the most and least vulnerable categories, one-third experience ranking shifts in our model. SVI-MC provides a more comprehensive and uncertainty-aware approach to social vulnerability assessment. This method is scalable, replicable, and adaptable, offering future applications for larger study regions or at finer observation units. The findings underscore the need for uncertainty-aware mapping in disaster planning, emergency response, and public health research, supporting more informed decision-making.

Indexed as

Social VulnerabilityHumansMonte Carlo MethodUncertainty

Identifiers

PMID42545994
PMCPMC13432101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.