The Role of Humidity in Associations of High Temperature with Mortality: A Multicountry, Multicity Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is strong experimental evidence that physiologic stress from high temperatures is greater if humidity is higher. However, heat indices developed to allow for this have not consistently predicted mortality better than dry-bulb temperature. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to clarify the potential contribution of humidity an addition to temperature in predicting daily mortality in summer by using a large multicountry dataset. METHODS: In 445 cities in 24 countries, we fit a time-series regression model for summer mortality with a distributed lag nonlinear model (DLNM) for temperature (up to lag 3) and supplemented this with a range of terms for relative humidity (RH) and its interaction with temperature. City-specific associations were summarized using meta-analytic techniques. RESULTS: Adding a linear term for RH to the temperature term improved fit slightly, with an increase of 23% in RH (the 99th percentile anomaly) associated with a 1.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.8, 1.3] decrease in mortality. Allowing curvature in the RH term or adding terms for interaction of RH with temperature did not improve the model fit. The humidity-related decreased risk was made up of a positive coefficient at lag 0 outweighed by negative coefficients at lags of 1-3 d. Key results were broadly robust to small model changes and replacing RH with absolute measures of humidity. Replacing temperature with apparent temperature, a metric combining humidity and temperature, reduced goodness of fit slightly. DISCUSSION: The absence of a positive association of humidity with mortality in summer in this large multinational study is counter to expectations from physiologic studies, though consistent with previous epidemiologic studies finding little evidence for improved prediction by heat indices. The result that there was a small negative average association of humidity with mortality should be interpreted cautiously; the lag structure has unclear interpretation and suggests the need for future work to clarify. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5430.
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 | 0.013 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".