🏆 Finalist — NIH Data Sharing Index (“S-Index”) Challenge
Demo corpus. Scores are computed on a select set of biomedical paper/datasets and may be inaccurate for papers outside this corpus — DataRank relies on network effects that improve with scale. We aim to expand this into a fully open resource pending additional funding.

Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

The Lancet(2020)10.1016/s0140-6736(20)30752-2Source: DataRank Database

Global burden of 87 risk factors in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019 is a dataset published in The Lancet (2020). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 11.1, placing it in the top 19% of the data-sharing corpus. It has been cited 9,447 times, with 108 citing works in its 1-hop citation network. Its calibrated FAIR score is 47/100.

Top 19%percentile
11.1DataRank
11.1Top 19%
Dataset Open Access9447 citations · base score 9.1
Cite:
datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

Abstract

BackgroundRigorous analysis of levels and trends in exposure to leading risk factors and quantification of their effect on human health are important to identify where public health is making progress and in which cases current efforts are inadequate. The Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 provides a standardised and comprehensive assessment of the magnitude of risk factor exposure, relative risk, and attributable burden of disease.MethodsGBD 2019 estimated attributable mortality, years of life lost (YLLs), years of life lived with disability (YLDs), and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 87 risk factors and combinations of risk factors, at the global level, regionally, and for 204 countries and territories. GBD uses a hierarchical list of risk factors so that specific risk factors (eg, sodium intake), and related aggregates (eg, diet quality), are both evaluated. This method has six analytical steps. (1) We included 560 risk-outcome pairs that met criteria for convincing or probable evidence on the basis of research studies. 12 risk-outcome pairs included in GBD 2017 no longer met inclusion criteria and 47 risk-outcome pairs for risks already included in GBD 2017 were added based on new evidence. (2) Relative risks were estimated as a function of exposure based on published systematic reviews, 81 systematic reviews done for GBD 2019, and meta-regression. (3) Levels of exposure in each age-sex-location-year included in the study were estimated based on all available data sources using spatiotemporal Gaussian process regression, DisMod-MR 2.1, a Bayesian meta-regression method, or alternative methods. (4) We determined, from published trials or cohort studies, the level of exposure associated with minimum risk, called the theoretical minimum risk exposure level. (5) Attributable deaths, YLLs, YLDs, and DALYs were computed by multiplying population attributable fractions (PAFs) by the relevant outcome quantity for each age-sex-location-year. (6) PAFs and attributable burden for combinations of risk factors were estimated taking into account mediation of different risk factors through other risk factors. Across all six analytical steps, 30 652 distinct data sources were used in the analysis. Uncertainty in each step of the analysis was propagated into the final estimates of attributable burden. Exposure levels for dichotomous, polytomous, and continuous risk factors were summarised with use of the summary exposure value to facilitate comparisons over time, across location, and across risks. Because the entire time series from 1990 to 2019 has been re-estimated with use of consistent data and methods, these results supersede previously published GBD estimates of attributable burden.FindingsThe largest declines in risk exposure from 2010 to 2019 were among a set of risks that are strongly linked to social and economic development, including household air pollution; unsafe water, sanitation, and handwashing; and child growth failure. Global declines also occurred for tobacco smoking and lead exposure. The largest increases in risk exposure were for ambient particulate matter pollution, drug use, high fasting plasma glucose, and high body-mass index. In 2019, the leading Level 2 risk factor globally for attributable deaths was high systolic blood pressure, which accounted for 10·8 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 9·51-12·1) deaths (19·2% [16·9-21·3] of all deaths in 2019), followed by tobacco (smoked, second-hand, and chewing), which accounted for 8·71 million (8·12-9·31) deaths (15·4% [14·6-16·2] of all deaths in 2019). The leading Level 2 risk factor for attributable DALYs globally in 2019 was child and maternal malnutrition, which largely affects health in the youngest age groups and accounted for 295 million (253-350) DALYs (11·6% [10·3-13·1] of all global DALYs that year). The risk factor burden varied considerably in 2019 between age groups and locations. Among children aged 0-9 years, the three leading detailed risk factors for attributable DALYs were all related to malnutrition. Iron deficiency was the leading risk factor for those aged 10-24 years, alcohol use for those aged 25-49 years, and high systolic blood pressure for those aged 50-74 years and 75 years and older.InterpretationOverall, the record for reducing exposure to harmful risks over the past three decades is poor. Success with reducing smoking and lead exposure through regulatory policy might point the way for a stronger role for public policy on other risks in addition to continued efforts to provide information on risk factor harm to the general public.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Data sources & pipeline
Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring
Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)
Findable (1/2)
  • Has DOI
Accessible (1/2)
  • Open Access
Interoperable (0/2)
    Reusable (1/3)
    • Dataset classification

    FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

    47FAIR score
    F Findable
    53
    A Accessible
    55
    I Interoperable
    38
    R Reusable
    42
    Top 56% by FAIRLLM-assessed✓ full text read

    Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →

    DataRank Breakdown

    Base Score 12%Citation Network 88%

    Base Score Contribution

    1.4

    From this paper's citation signal

    Citation Network Contribution

    9.8

    From 108 citing papers with measurable signal

    Learn more about DataRank methodology →
    Why this DataRank?

    DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 12% comes from its base citations and 88% from the citation network (108 citing papers contributed measurable signal).

    Base score B(p)
    log1p(citation_count) — grows sub-linearly, so a paper with 1,000 citations is not 10× a paper with 100.
    Network N(p)
    Σ over citers of log1p(Cq) ÷ max(outdegreeq, 1). Being cited by a highly-cited paper with few references counts most.
    Damping factor d = 0.85
    DataRank = (1−d)·B(p) + d·N(p) — the two cards above are each already multiplied by their share.
    Self-citations excluded
    Citers sharing any OpenAlex author ID with this paper are filtered out before the network sum.

    Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.

    Read the full methodology →

    Click a node to highlight its connections. Use scroll to zoom. Drag to pan.

    Node colors:CenterData PaperData + Open AccessNon-dataSelected & links| Node size = percentile rank

    Authors (1002)

    Aleksandr Y. AravkinORCID,Cristiana AbbafatiORCID,Kaja M Abbas,Mohsen Abbasi-Kangevari,Foad Abd-AllahORCID

    Related Papers (10)

    BMJ(2013)
    co-cited
    10.1136/bmj.f6698