Global and country-level estimates of human population at high altitude
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Estimates of the global population of humans living at high altitude vary widely, and such data at the country level are unavailable. Herein, we use a geographic information system (GIS)-based approach to quantify human population at 500-m elevation intervals for each country. Based on georeferenced data for population (LandScan Global 2019) and elevation (Global Multiresolution Terrain Elevation Data), 500.3 million humans live at ≥1,500 m, 81.6 million at ≥2,500 m, and 14.4 million at ≥3,500 m. Ethiopia has the largest absolute population at ≥1,500 m and ≥2,500 m, while China has the greatest at ≥3,500 m. Lesotho has the greatest percentage of its population above 1,500 m, while Bolivia has the greatest at ≥2,500 m and ≥3,500 m. High altitude presents a myriad of environmental stresses that provoke physiological responses and adaptation, and consequently impact disease prevalence and severity. While the majority of high-altitude physiology research is based upon lowlanders from western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic countries ascending to high altitude, the global population distribution of high-altitude residents encourages an increased emphasis on understanding high-altitude physiology, adaptation, epidemiology, and public health in the ∼500 million permanent high-altitude residents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".