Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42627818›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Misappropriating vulnerability: Assessing the utility of the social vulnerability index as a predictor of firearm violence.

Matt Vogel, Heeyoung Lee, Taylor Kaser, Yoobin Kim

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

4 authors.

Matt VogelSchool of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3996-2237
Heeyoung LeeDepartment of Sociology, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York, United States of America.
Taylor KaserDepartment of Emergency Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America.
Yoobin KimSchool of Criminal Justice, University at Albany, SUNY, Albany, New York, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Social Vulnerability Index (SVI), a measure designed to gauge a community's resilience to natural disasters, such as hurricanes or wildfires, has been increasingly adopted in community violence research to identify places at risk of firearm-related harms. We take stock of recent research on social vulnerability and critically assess the conceptual and empirical validity of the SVI in the context of community firearm violence. We first compare the measurement properties of the SVI with a conventional index of concentrated disadvantage (CDI) commonplace in social science research on community violence. We then compare the empirical associations between firearm violence and the SVI and CDI in a series of tract-level, cross-sectional models in 84 American cities. Our results demonstrate that the SVI consistently underperforms relative to the traditional measure of CDI and that the SVI's explanatory power derives almost entirely from its socioeconomic status subtheme. Conceptually, the SVI measures a community's capacity to absorb exogenous shocks, not the structural determinants of violence. Methodologically, its rank-based equal-weighting scheme weakens construct validity. We argue that the reliance on SVI in the realm of firearm research represents a form of conceptual drift that risks misdirecting prevention resources and mischaracterizing the community-level origins of firearm harms in the United States.

Indexed as

FirearmsGun ViolenceSocial VulnerabilityViolenceCross-Sectional StudiesHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID42627818
PMCPMC13496440

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.