ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Coordinating extreme-heat adaptation at mega-sporting events: early warning and cost sharing in a multi-actor differential game.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Coordinating extreme-heat adaptation at mega-sporting events is a time-dependent public health challenge because public authorities, event organizers, and participating teams control different protective measures while heat risk evolves over a finite competition horizon. Existing sport-heat research describes exposure and prevention yet provides limited guidance on how adaptation should be timed, coordinated, and financed across responsible institutions. Methods: We develop a three-actor linear-quadratic differential game with gross event heat-risk pressure and accumulated adaptive capacity as state variables. Open-loop Nash, government-led Stackelberg, and cooperative solutions are evaluated under four normalized heat-shock structures. Early-warning lead time enters through a piecewise information structure, and a budget-balanced cost-sharing rule supports decentralized implementation of the cooperative path. Results: In the baseline late-peak scenario with a lead time of three normalized units, cooperation reduces modeled social loss by 21.9% relative to Nash and 23.1% relative to government-led Stackelberg; peak residual heat-risk pressure falls by 28.0% and 28.7%, respectively. Under the baseline parameterization, social loss in the government-led regime exceeds the Nash value by 1.6%. Earlier warning lowers loss, residual pressure, and peak effort, although its marginal value declines once a usable preparation window is available. Across the tested combinations of warning lead time and organizer mitigation efficiency, cooperative social gains range from 16.7 to 24.4%. Within the model, the effective preparation-window threshold-defined as the first normalized lead time capturing 80% of the cooperative warning benefit available between Discussion: The Nash-Stackelberg ordering is conditional on the government-first sequence, actor-specific objectives, and parameter values used in the analysis. Within the normalized model, these findings indicate that coordinated extreme-heat adaptation can benefit from aligning actor objectives and linking warning information to actionable time, institutional capability, and financing. Event-specific application requires empirical calibration.
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.