Associations between meteorological factors and COVID-19: a global scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many respiratory viruses and their associated diseases are sensitive to meteorological factors. For SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, evidence on this sensitivity is inconsistent. Understanding the influence of meteorological factors on SARS-CoV-2 transmission and COVID-19 epidemiology can help to improve pandemic preparedness. Objectives: This review aimed to examine the recent evidence about the relation between meteorological factors and SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a global scoping review of peer-reviewed studies published from January 2020 up to January 2023 about the associations between temperature, solar radiation, precipitation, humidity, wind speed, and atmospheric pressure and SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. Results: From 9,156 initial records, we included 474 relevant studies. Experimental studies on SARS-CoV-2 provided consistent evidence that higher temperatures and solar radiation negatively affect virus viability. Studies on COVID-19 (epidemiology) were mostly observational and provided less consistent evidence. Several studies considered interactions between meteorological factors or other variables such as demographics or air pollution. None of the publications included all determinants holistically. Discussion: The association between short-term meteorological factors and SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 dynamics is complex. Interactions between environmental and social components need further consideration. A more integrated research approach can provide valuable insights to predict the dynamics of respiratory viruses with pandemic potential.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".