MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379467519 · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(23)00057-8

Associations between residential greenspace exposure and mortality in 4 645 581 adults living in London, UK: a longitudinal study

2023· article· en· W4379467519 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha Hajna, Vahé Nafilyan, Steven Cummins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Planetary Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersHealth Data Research UKEconomic and Social Research CouncilChief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health and Social Care DirectorateMedical Research CouncilPublic Health AgencyDepartment of Health and Social CareEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilOffice for National StatisticsHealth and Social Care Research and Development DivisionNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBritish Heart FoundationScottish GovernmentOrdnance SurveyWellcome Trust
KeywordsDemographyGeographyHazard ratioPoisson regressionProportional hazards modelConfoundingEnvironmental healthMortality rateMedicineGerontologyPopulationConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Urban greenspaces could reduce non-communicable disease (NCD) risk. The links between greenspaces and NCD-related mortality remain unclear. We aimed to estimate associations between residential greenspace quantity and access and all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality, cancer mortality, respiratory mortality, and type 2 diabetes mortality. Methods We linked 2011 UK Census data of London-dwelling adults (aged ≥18 years) to data from the UK death registry and the Greenspace Information for Greater London resource. We calculated percentage greenspace area, access point density (access points per km 2 ), and distance in metres to the nearest access point for each respondent's residential neighbourhood (defined as 1000 m street network buffers) for greenspaces overall and by park type using a geographic information system. We estimated associations using Cox proportional hazards models, adjusted for a range of confounders. Findings Data were available for 4 645 581 individuals between March 27, 2011, and Dec 31, 2019. Respondents were followed up for a mean of 8·4 years (SD 1·4). All-cause mortality did not differ with overall greenspace coverage (hazard ratio [HR] 1·0004, 95% CI 0·9996–1·0012), increased with increasing access point density (1·0076, 1·0031–1·0120), and decreased slightly with increasing distance to the nearest access point (HR 0·9993, 0·9987–0·9998). A 1 percentage point (pp) increase in pocket park (areas for rest and recreation under 0·4 hectares) coverage was associated with a decrease in all-cause mortality risk (0·9441, 0·9213–0·9675), and an increase of ten pocket park access points per km 2 was associated with a decreased respiratory mortality risk (0·9164, 0·8457–0·9931). Other associations were observed, but the estimated effects were small (eg, all-cause mortality risk for increases of 1 pp in regional park area were 0·9913, 0·9861–0·9966 and increases of ten small open space access points per km 2 were 1·0247, 1·0151–1·0344). Interpretation Increasing the quantity of, and access to, pocket parks might help mitigate mortality risk. More research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms that could explain these associations. Funding Health Data Research UK (HDRUK).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.760

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Planetary HealthSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207