ArticleGeoHealth2026
Assessing the Importance of Spatial Scale in Climate-Health Models: The Effect of Temperature on Emergency Department Visits in Richmond, Virginia.
Article in GeoHealth, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Climate-health studies often rely on data from a single high-quality weather station to represent the exposure of individuals living in the surrounding region. However, with the availability of various gridded climatic data sets, a critical question is whether spatially explicit data can better capture individual environmental exposures and reveal stronger climate-health associations. We investigated the impact of spatial-scale climatic variability and representativeness for emergency department (ED) visits in Richmond, Virginia, United States. This study compared the climate-health relationship using data from a weather station and the ERA5 reanalysis from 2016 to 2022. We evaluated the correlation of the two time-series and used generalized additive models to compare the temperature-ED visit associations across four nested spatial scales. The results were highly consistent across all spatial scales. The station and ERA5 data exhibited similar distributions. The temperature-ED visit relationships showed strong agreement between the two data sources, reflected in both location-specific and pooled estimates. Although ERA5 produced slightly lower cold-related and higher heat-related estimates at extreme temperatures, no marked differences were found between the two data sources. Our findings suggest that, in this region with a relatively homogeneous climate, the variations of regional climate might be small enough to fall within the model's expected uncertainty. Although this result may not apply in regions with considerable local climate variation, data from a single high-quality station in many regions are appropriate to model climate-health relationships over the greater surrounding areas. We recommend similar comparative work across diverse climatic settings to evaluate the generalizability of this conclusion.
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.