Key result
Co-created urban interventions are linked to improved sleep and lung function alongside distinct metabolic shifts.
Why the study?
Do co-created urban interventions (active mobility, greening, traffic calming) improve environmental exposures, biological profiles, and functional health outcomes in urban residents?
Observational
Yes
Do co-created urban interventions (active mobility, greening, traffic calming) improve environmental exposures, biological profiles, and functional health outcomes in urban residents?
An integrated exposome-based framework evaluating urban interventions demonstrated feasibility and preliminary evidence of improved self-reported and biological health markers, though external validation is required.
Genomic insights into urban stressor synergies may refine individual CVD risk; leaves open validation and clinical translation.
Urban environments expose residents to multiple simultaneous stressors that often act synergistically (e.g., air pollution and extreme heat amplifying cardiovascular and respiratory risks), contributing to a substantial public health burden. Environmental factors account for an estimated 13% of all deaths in the European Union, with ambient air pollution alone responsible for approximately 400,000 premature deaths per year. Most of this burden is mediated through chronic non-communicable diseases, including cardiovascular disease, stroke, cancer, respiratory disease, and mental health outcomes. Because these conditions are shaped by interacting environmental, social, and lifestyle determinants, traditional single-hazard approaches are insufficient, motivating adoption of an exposome paradigm. This paper presents the URBANOME methodological framework, an integrated exposome-based architecture for evaluating urban interventions across external exposures, internal biological responses, functional health outcomes, and policy-relevant indicators, and reports illustrative pilot findings from its first multi-site implementation. In a four-year Horizon 2020 study across nine European cities (Aarhus, Aberdeen, Athens, Ljubljana, Madrid, Milan, Montpellier, Stuttgart, and Thessaloniki), URBANOME implemented an integrated exposome framework through Urban Living Labs (ULLs). Co-created interventions (combining active mobility, urban greening, and traffic calming) were evaluated using a before–after design. Methods included ambient and personal exposure monitoring (wearable sensors, smartphone applications), agent-based population exposure modeling, validated health and well-being questionnaires, objective clinical measures (spirometry, blood pressure, heart rate variability), and multi-omics analyses (untargeted metabolomics and transcriptomics) on biological samples. A cost–benefit analysis quantified the economic return of interventions. The framework was successfully implemented across the nine ULLs, although intervention type, comparator availability, sample size, and follow-up duration varied by site (Table 1). Across paired participants, self-reported air-pollution annoyance and sleep-related breathing problems decreased between baseline and follow-up assessments, and pollution-related differences in forced vital capacity (FVC) were attenuated in higher-exposure neighbourhoods. In an exploratory pilot omics sub-cohort with paired pre/post samples, a four-metabolite panel (L-tyrosine, ascorbic acid, choline, coenzyme Q10) showed apparent perfect internal separation of pre- and post-intervention samples (apparent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, AUROC ≈ 1.0); given the small sample size and absence of an independent held-out validation set, this result is preliminary and likely overoptimistic, and must be interpreted as a hypothesis-generating finding requiring external validation. Exploratory exposome–lifestyle analyses suggested that co-exposure to poor diet and higher pollution was associated with greater oxidative-stress-related metabolic signals, while combined healthy environments and lifestyles were associated with anti-inflammatory metabolite profiles. An exploratory cost–benefit analysis, based on value-transfer assumptions and standard health-economic unit costs, estimated benefit–cost ratios in the range of approximately €19–€143 per €1 invested across heterogeneous interventions; this range reflects substantial between-site variability and the assumptions detailed in the Methods, and should be interpreted as illustrative rather than as a precise return-on-investment estimate. This paper presents the URBANOME exposome-based evaluation framework and reports illustrative pilot findings from its multi-site implementation. The framework is feasible to deploy across heterogeneous European urban contexts and links external exposure assessment, internal biological profiling, functional health outcomes, and economic appraisal within a single architecture. Observed pre/post changes in self-reported, functional, and molecular endpoints are consistent with potentially beneficial responses to bundled urban interventions, but should be considered preliminary given the heterogeneous before–after design, variable comparator availability, small omics sub-cohorts, and short follow-up. External validation of the candidate biomarker panel and replication in independent settings are required before the framework’s outputs can support firm conclusions about intervention effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. The URBANOME framework operationalises the urban exposome through co-created interventions in nine European Urban Living Labs (ULLs). Integrated sensors, agent-based modelling, and multi-omics link urban exposures to internal biological responses. A four-metabolite candidate panel showed apparent perfect internal separation of pre/post samples in a small pilot omics sub-cohort and is presented as a hypothesis-generating finding requiring external validation. Pre/post changes in self-reported sleep, lung function, and stress-related molecular pathways were consistent with potential intervention-related effects, pending replication. An exploratory cost–benefit analysis estimated wide between-site benefit–cost ratios (approximately €19–€143 per €1 invested) and suggested potential equity gains under targeted scenarios; full assumptions and sensitivity analyses are reported in the Methods.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarigiannis et al. (2026) reported an observational. Co-created urban interventions (active mobility, urban greening, traffic calming) vs. Pre-intervention baseline was evaluated. Co-created urban interventions improved self-reported sleep and lung function, and a four-metabolite panel perfectly separated pre- and post-intervention samples (AUROC ≈ 1.0).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: