Hospitalization risks associated with floods in a multi-country study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Floods of unprecedented intensity and frequency have been observed. However, evidence regarding the impacts of floods on hospitalization remains limited. Here we collected daily hospitalization counts during 2000-2019 from 747 communities in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Chile, New Zealand, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. For each community, flooded days were defined as days from the start dates to the end dates of flood events. Lag-response associations between flooded day and daily hospitalization risks were estimated for each community using a quasi-Poisson regression model with a distributed lag nonlinear function. The community-specific estimates were then pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Based on the pooled estimates, attributable fractions of hospitalizations due to floods were calculated. We found that hospitalization risks increased and persisted for up to 210 days after flood exposure, with the overall relative risks being 1.26 (95% confidence interval 1.15-1.38) for all causes, 1.35 (1.21-1.50) for cardiovascular diseases, 1.30 (1.13-1.49) for respiratory diseases, 1.26 (1.10-1.44) for infectious diseases, 1.30 (1.17-1.45) for digestive diseases, 1.11 (0.98-1.25) for mental disorders, 1.61 (1.39-1.86) for diabetes, 1.35 (1.21-1.50) for injury, 1.34 (1.21-1.48) for cancer, 1.34 (1.20-1.50) for nervous system disorders and 1.40 (1.22-1.60) for renal diseases. The associations were modified by climate types, flood severity, age, population density and socioeconomic status. Flood exposure contributed to hospitalizations by up to 0.27% from all causes. This study revealed that flood exposure was associated with increased all-cause and ten cause-specific hospitalization risks within up to 210 days after exposure.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it