Temperature Variability and Mortality: A Multi-Country Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The evidence and method are limited for the associations between mortality and temperature variability (TV) within or between days. OBJECTIVES: We developed a novel method to calculate TV and investigated TV-mortality associations using a large multicountry data set. METHODS: We collected daily data for temperature and mortality from 372 locations in 12 countries/regions (Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, Moldova, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, the United Kingdom, and the United States). We calculated TV from the standard deviation of the minimum and maximum temperatures during the exposure days. Two-stage analyses were used to assess the relationship between TV and mortality. In the first stage, a Poisson regression model allowing over-dispersion was used to estimate the community-specific TV-mortality relationship, after controlling for potential confounders. In the second stage, a meta-analysis was used to pool the effect estimates within each country. RESULTS: There was a significant association between TV and mortality in all countries, even after controlling for the effects of daily mean temperature. In stratified analyses, TV was still significantly associated with mortality in cold, hot, and moderate seasons. Mortality risks related to TV were higher in hot areas than in cold areas when using short TV exposures (0-1 days), whereas TV-related mortality risks were higher in moderate areas than in cold and hot areas when using longer TV exposures (0-7 days). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that more attention should be paid to unstable weather conditions in order to protect health. These findings may have implications for developing public health policies to manage health risks of climate change. CITATION: Guo Y, Gasparrini A, Armstrong BG, Tawatsupa B, Tobias A, Lavigne E, Coelho MS, Pan X, Kim H, Hashizume M, Honda Y, Guo YL, Wu CF, Zanobetti A, Schwartz JD, Bell ML, Overcenco A, Punnasiri K, Li S, Tian L, Saldiva P, Williams G, Tong S. 2016. Temperature variability and mortality: a multi-country study. Environ Health Perspect 124:1554-1559; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/EHP149.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".