Ambient Temperature and Emergency Hospital Admissions in People Experiencing Homelessness: London, United Kingdom, 2011–2019
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. To assess the impacts of ambient temperature on hospitalizations of people experiencing homelessness. Methods. We used daily time-series regression analysis employing distributed lag nonlinear models of 148 177 emergency inpatient admissions with “no fixed abode” and 20 804 admissions with a diagnosis of homelessness in London, United Kingdom, in 2011 through 2019. Results. There was a significantly increased risk of hospitalization associated with high temperature; at 25°C versus the minimum morbidity temperature (MMT), relative risks were 1.359 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.216, 1.580) and 1.351 (95% CI = 1.039, 1.757) for admissions with “no fixed abode” and admissions with a homelessness diagnosis, respectively. Between 14.5% and 18.9% of admissions were attributable to temperatures above the MMT. No significant associations were observed with cold. Conclusions. There is an elevated risk of hospitalization associated with even moderately high temperatures in individuals experiencing homelessness. Risks are larger than those reported in the general population. Public Health Implications. Greater emphasis should be placed on addressing homeless vulnerabilities during hot weather rather than cold. Activation thresholds for interventions such as the Severe Weather Emergency Protocol (SWEP) could be better aligned with health risks. Given elevated risks at even moderate temperatures, our findings support prioritization of prevention-oriented measures, rather than crisis response, to address homelessness. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(9):981–984. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307351 )
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".