Trends and gaps in climate change and health research in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment Report (2014) assessed the state of climate change and health knowledge, globally through the Human Health: Impacts, Adaptation, and Co-Benefits Chapter and regionally through chapters, such as the North America Chapter. With IPCC's 6th Assessment Report scheduled to be released in 2021-22, we asked: how has climate change and health research in North America advanced since the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report in 2014? Specifically, we systematically identified and examined trends in the extent, range, and nature of climate-health research conducted in North America. We used a scoping review methodology to systematically identify literature and map publication trends. A search string was used to search five academic databases. Two independent reviewers first screened titles and abstracts, and then the full texts of articles for relevance. Research articles and reviews using systematic methods published since 2013 were eligible for inclusion, and no language restrictions were applied. To be included, articles had to measure and link climatic variables or hazards to health outcomes in North America. Relevant articles were analysed using descriptive statistics to explore publication trends. The number of climate-health articles has significantly increased since the last IPCC Assessment Report. Published research about climate change impacts, heat-related mortality and morbidity, and respiratory illness taking place in urban centres and in the USA continue to dominate the North American climate-health literature, reflected by the high proportion of articles published. Important research gaps on previously neglected climate-sensitive health outcomes, however, are beginning to be filled, including climate change impacts on mental health, nutrition, and foodborne disease. We also observed progress in research that included future projections of climate-health risks; however, projection research is still relatively nascent and under-studied for many climate-sensitive health outcomes in North America, and would benefit from considering social and demographic variables in models. Important research disparities in geographical coverage were noted, including research gaps in Canada and Mexico, and in rural and remote regions. Overall, these publication trends suggest an improved understanding of exposure-response relationships and future projections of climate-health risks for many climate-sensitive health outcomes in North America, which is promising and provides an evidence-base to inform the IPCC 6th Assessment Report. Despite these advancements and considering the urgent policy and practice implications, more research is needed to deepen our understanding of climate-sensitive health outcomes, as well as examine new arising issues that have limited evidence-bases. In particular, transdisciplinary and cross-sector research, that includes the social sciences, examining current and future climate-health adaptation, mitigation, and the adaptation-mitigation nexus should become a top priority for research, given the urgent need for this evidence to inform climate change policies, actions, and interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".