MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402210703 · doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(24)00158-x

Risks of infectious disease hospitalisations in the aftermath of tropical cyclones: a multi-country time-series study

2024· article· en· W4402210703 on OpenAlexaffabout
Wenzhong Huang, Thomas Vogt, Jin-Ah Park, Zhengyu Yang, Elizabeth A. Ritchie, Rongbin Xu, Yiwen Zhang, Simon Hales, Wenhua Yu, Samuel Hundessa, Christian Otto, Pei Yu, Yanming Liu, Ke Ju, Éric Lavigne, Tingting Ye, Bo Wen, Yao Wu, Wissanupong Kliengchuay, Kraichat Tantrakarnapa, Yue Leon Guo, Ho Kim, Dung Phung, Shanshan Li, Yuming Guo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet Planetary Health · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTropical cycloneTropical diseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)GeographyMeteorologyDiseaseMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The proportion of intense tropical cyclones is expected to increase in a changing climate. However, there is currently no consistent and comprehensive assessment of infectious disease risk following tropical cyclone exposure across countries and over decades. We aimed to explore the tropical cyclone-associated hospitalisation risks and burden for cause-specific infectious diseases on a multi-country scale. METHODS: Hospitalisation records for infectious diseases were collected from six countries and territories (Canada, South Korea, New Zealand, Taiwan, Thailand, and Viet Nam) during various periods between 2000 and 2019. The days with tropical cyclone-associated maximum sustained windspeeds of 34 knots or higher derived from a parametric wind field model were considered as tropical cyclone exposure days. The association of monthly infectious diseases hospitalisations and tropical cyclone exposure days was first examined at location level using a distributed lag non-linear quasi-Poisson regression model, and then pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. The tropical cyclone-attributable number and fraction of infectious disease hospitalisations were also calculated. FINDINGS: Overall, 2·2 million people who were hospitalised for infectious diseases in 179 locations that had at least one tropical cyclone exposure day in the six countries and territories were included in the analysis. The elevated hospitalisation risks for infectious diseases associated with tropical cyclones tended to dissipate 2 months after the tropical cyclone exposure. Overall, each additional tropical cyclone day was associated with a 9% (cumulative relative risk 1·09 [95% CI 1·05-1·14]) increase in hospitalisations for all-cause infectious diseases, 13% (1·13 [1·05-1·21]) for intestinal infectious diseases, 14% (1·14 [1·05-1·23]) for sepsis, and 22% (1·22 [1·03-1·46]) for dengue during the 2 months after a tropical cyclone. Associations of tropical cyclones with hospitalisations for tuberculosis and malaria were not significant. In total, 0·72% (95% CI 0·40-1·01) of the hospitalisations for all-cause infectious diseases, 0·33% (0·15-0·49) for intestinal infectious diseases, 1·31% (0·57-1·95) for sepsis, and 0·63% (0·10-1·04) for dengue were attributable to tropical cyclone exposures. The attributable burdens were higher among young populations (aged ≤19 years) and male individuals compared with their counterparts, especially for intestinal infectious diseases. The heterogeneous spatiotemporal pattern was further revealed at the country and territory level-tropical cyclone-attributable fractions showed a decreasing trend in South Korea during the study period but an increasing trend in Viet Nam, Taiwan, and New Zealand. INTERPRETATION: Tropical cyclones were associated with persistent elevated hospitalisation risks of infectious diseases (particularly sepsis and intestinal infectious diseases). Targeted interventions should be formulated for different populations, regions, and causes of infectious diseases based on evidence on tropical cyclone epidemiology to respond to the increasing risk and burden. FUNDING: Australian Research Council, Australian National Health, and Medical Research Council.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.229
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations16
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Lancet Planetary HealthSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207