Prediction models for highly scalable technology-assisted differential diagnostics of autism spectrum disorder.

In recent years, urban health has started to look less like a medical issue and more like a design problem. Urban residents are exposed to elevated levels of air pollution, traffic noise, and thermal stress, while physical inactivity and psychosocial strain contribute to the global burden of non-communicable diseases (Rajagopalan et al. ; Arriazu-Ramos et al. ). Cities now face the challenge of creating environments that promote health while adapting to climate change, managing pollution, and addressing social inequality (Rajagopalan et al. ; Arriazu-Ramos et al. ). This has ensured that urban planning has been given a focus in the public-health discourse. Not all people in the city perceive the city in a similar manner. The inequalities of the society and spaces define the beneficiaries of urban green and those who experience vulnerabilities to poor environments. Socioeconomically disadvantaged populations often have poorer availability and accessibility to urban green and blue spaces, which may restrict opportunities for restorative contact with nature and contribute to existing health inequalities (Schüle et al. ; Rodriguez Castañeda et al. ). These disparities are further exacerbated by climate change, particularly among vulnerable populations and communities with limited adaptive capacity (Parsons et al. ). Understanding and addressing these inequalities is essential for designing healthier and more climate-resilient cities (Arriazu-Ramos et al. ). In this scenario, nature-based solutions (NBS) have become a new promising urban approach to address environmental and health issues at the same time. Characterized by the European Commission as the interventions that cooperate with nature to provide societal values, NBS are intended to provide biodiversity, climate resilience, and human well-being in a holistic manner, as defined by the International Union of Conservation of Nature (IUCN). In this review, we use the term NBS/BGI to refer to both intentionally designed nature-based solutions and the broader category of blue-green infrastructure (BGI) — which includes parks, street trees, green roofs and wetlands — when the original included study does not explicitly apply the NBS label. Part of urban NBS, including parks, street trees, forests, blue-green corridors, green roofs, and wetlands, can perform ecological tasks and at the same time provide public space, cooling, and aesthetics. Integrating ecological and social aims, they are the transition to the multi-functional urban system of isolated projects on greening (Price ; Sowińska-Świerkosz and Garcia ; Viti et al. ; Athokpam et al. ). Green-blue infrastructure (BGI) is the broader infrastructural category that includes parks, street trees, greenways, green roofs, blue spaces, wetlands and vegetated barriers, whether or not the intentionality and co-benefit requirements of NBS are explicitly stated. Because the empirical literature does not always label implemented green or blue projects as NBS, we refer to NBS/BGI when the intervention has the characteristics of an urban nature-based or green-blue intervention but the original study uses different terminology.