Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42752745›Full record

ReviewCurrent environmental health reports2026

Bayesian Causal Methods for Environmental Accountability Studies with Heterogeneous Effects.

Dafne Zorzetto, Emma Landry, Michele Guindani, Donatello Telesca, Valeria Edefonti, Roberta De Vito, Falco J Bargagli-Stoffi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current environmental health reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Dafne ZorzettoDepartment of Biostatistics, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA.
Emma LandryDepartment of Biostatistics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Michele GuindaniDepartment of Biostatistics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Donatello TelescaDepartment of Biostatistics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.
Valeria EdefontiDepartment of Clinical Sciences and Community Health - Dipartimento di Eccellenza 2023-2027, University of Milan, Milan, Italy.
Roberta De VitoDepartment of Biostatistics, Brown University, Providence, RI, 02912, USA. roberta.devito@uniroma1.it.
Falco J Bargagli-StoffiDepartment of Biostatistics, University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 90095, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewEnvironmental accountability studies evaluate whether regulatory interventions achieve their intended benefits. These studies fall into two broad categories: indirect accountability, which estimates the effects of exposure to higher levels of air pollution and uses them to indirectly predict policy impacts, and direct accountability, which evaluates specific interventions directly. The purpose of this review is to evaluate recent advances in causal inference and flexible Bayesian statistical modeling to support environmental accountability studies. RECENT

findingsRecent studies, in both direct and indirect environmental accountability, deeply rely on causal inference to produce robust inferences and provide relevant and actionable insights to policy-makers and practitioners. In this context, heterogeneous treatment effects are central to both approaches as it is critically important to understand which subpopulations are most vulnerable (or resilient), requiring methods that can characterize effect variation. Bayesian nonparametric (BNP) methods have been proposed for this task due to their flexibility and ability to cluster units into coherent subgroups. We present a selection of BNP methods designed or adapted for each type of accountability, focusing on complementary approaches based on Bayesian Additive Regression Trees (BART) and Dependent Dirichlet Processes (DDP). Through Monte Carlo simulations, we compare these methods, identify their respective advantages, and provide recommendations for adoption and implementation in environmental accountability research.

Indexed as

Environmental ExposureSocial ResponsibilityAir PollutionBayes TheoremHumansMonte Carlo MethodBayesian nonparametricsCausal inferenceEnvironmental accountabilityHeterogeneous treatment effects

Identifiers

PMID42752745
PMCPMC13585896

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.