ArticleScience advances2026
Explaining building damage from wildfires in California.
Article in Science advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A physically interpretable, data-driven framework was developed to elucidate causal interactions, model, and predict wildfire-induced building damage across California. More than 100,000 damage inspection records (2013 to 2024) were used to model building damage from static environmental variables (topography, vegetation, and human footprint), dynamic weather inputs, and a proposed Composite Building Flammability Rating (CBFR). Three model configurations were tested: (i) a comprehensive model integrating all variables, (ii) an enviro-weather hybrid excluding CBFR, and (iii) an environmental exposure model excluding both weather and CBFR. A strict 200-meter spatial dead-zone constraint was applied to eliminate local autocorrelation, and the comprehensive model achieved 88% (±0.4%) accuracy, which dropped to 82.9% (±0.6%) without CBFR and to 74.5% (±0.5%) without both weather and CBFR. Spatial grid-based cross-validation demonstrated a diverse accuracy of 68.0 (±17%), 66.0 (±16%), and 62.0 (±13%), respectively. Building flammability, dew point temperature, and near-surface wind speed were identified as the most important predictors of damage. Vapor pressure deficit had the strongest causal effect on damage probability, though spatial variability was observed in the causal effects of climate and geographic variables. A 100-meter-resolution Wildfire Building Damage Risk Index was also developed to highlight high-risk damage zones. Findings emphasize that wildfire impacts in the wildland-urban interface result from a confluence of structural vulnerability, atmospheric dryness, and fuel exposure, offering scalable tools for risk forecasting, defensible space planning, and climate-resilient infrastructure development.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.