Advancing extreme heat risk assessments to better capture individually-experienced temperatures: A new approach to describe individual and subgroup vulnerabilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Extreme heat risk assessments often rely on epidemiologic studies that used the nearest available outdoor airport temperatures (OATs) rather than individually-experienced temperatures (IETs) and frequently lack key individual-level determinants of exposure, including occupation, housing, and air conditioning. This hampers efforts to characterize heat burden inequities and guide interventions for vulnerable populations. OBJECTIVES: We developed an approach to estimate individual and subgroup-specific health impacts from modeled IETs before and during extreme heat events for three U.S. cities: Atlanta, Georgia (hot-humid), Detroit, Michigan (temperate), and Phoenix, Arizona (hot-dry). METHODS: IET profiles were estimated using modeled parcel-linked population microdata, housing-specific indoor temperatures from building energy models, ambient temperatures from urban-scale climate models, and time activity patterns from surveys. We linked each IET profile to daily OATs, then fit mixed-effects regressions to predict "equivalent" OATs (eOATs), based on IET, housing, and demographics. We assigned risk ratios (RRs) from existing literature on all-cause mortality, all-cause emergency department (ED) visits, and preterm births to each person-day's eOAT and estimated 5-day-extreme-heat absolute risks (ARs) by age-race-income-occupation subgroup. RESULTS: The eOATs, RRs, and ARs differed between people due to variability in IETs and baseline health outcome incidence rates. All-cause mortality RRs ranges were 1.00-1.16 (Atlanta), 1.01-7.08 (Detroit), and 1.00-6.38 (Phoenix). All-cause-mortality ARs ranged 0.01-32 (Atlanta), 0.01-1,100 (Detroit), and 0.01-950 (Phoenix) per 100,000 persons. ED visit ARs ranges were 0.2-270 (Atlanta) and 0.04-6,200 (Phoenix) per 100,000 persons. Heat mortality ARs were higher among older adults and, only in Detroit, in young, Black, outdoor workers (median = 6.6 per 100,000) compared to young, non-Black, higher-income, indoor workers (median = 0.3 per 100,000). DISCUSSION: When IETs can be estimated or directly measured, person-specific eOATs can be used to estimate the subgroup-specific heat-health burdens that would be experienced without adaptive behaviors. This approach could be adapted for other contexts to inform climate preparedness and justice policies. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP15223.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".