What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?

Recent technological advances in representation of processes in numerical climate models have led to skillful predictions, which can consequently increase the confidence of hydrological predictions and usability of hydroclimatic services. Given that many water‐related stakeholders are affected by se...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Water resources research 2020-06, Vol.56 (6), p.n/a
Hauptverfasser: Pechlivanidis, I. G., Crochemore, L., Rosberg, J., Bosshard, T.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page n/a
container_issue 6
container_start_page
container_title Water resources research
container_volume 56
creator Pechlivanidis, I. G.
Crochemore, L.
Rosberg, J.
Bosshard, T.
description Recent technological advances in representation of processes in numerical climate models have led to skillful predictions, which can consequently increase the confidence of hydrological predictions and usability of hydroclimatic services. Given that many water‐related stakeholders are affected by seasonal hydrological variations, there is a need to manage such variations to their advantage through better understanding of the drivers that influence hydrological predictability. Here we analyze the seasonal forecasts of streamflow volumes across about 35,400 basins in Europe, which lie along a strong gradient in terms of climatology, scale, and hydrological regime. We then link the seasonal volumetric errors to various physiographic‐hydroclimatic descriptors and meteorological biases in order to identify the key drivers controlling predictability. Streamflow volumes over Europe are well predicted, yet with some geographic and seasonal variability; however, the predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. Nevertheless, we show that the forecast quality is well correlated to a set of descriptors, which vary depending on the initialization month. The forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volumes is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, with limited predictability in relatively flashy basins. On the contrary, snow and/or baseflow dominated regions with long recessions show high streamflow predictability. Finally, climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to streamflow predictability, highlighting the importance of developing robust bias adjustment methods. Overall, this investigation shows that the seasonal streamflow predictability can be clustered, and hence regionalized, based on a priori knowledge of local hydroclimatic conditions. Plain Language Summary Hydrological information for the months ahead is of great value to existing decision‐making practices, particularly to those affected by the vagaries of the climate and who would benefit from better understanding and managing climate‐related risks. Currently, there is limited knowledge of the factors controlling the quality of the seasonal streamflow forecasts. We analyze such forecasts over Europe and link their predictability to basin descriptors and meteorological biases. This allows the identification of the key drivers along a strong hydroclimatic gradient. The seasonal streamflow predictability varies geographically and
doi_str_mv 10.1029/2019WR026987
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_04670911v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2425599744</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-86dd7c093f01bfcad402c4c53ab200c3710b440733bb71f098155351a2af53363</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90F1LwzAUBuAgCs7pnT8g4JVg9eSjzXIlozonDsRO2WVIu8R1dIsm3Ub_vZ0V8cqrA-95eOEchM4JXBOg8oYCkbMMaCIH4gD1iOQ8ElKwQ9QD4CwiTIpjdBLCEoDwOBE9lM0WusZDb3C9MPjJNPjOl1vjA07duvauqsr1-_fuZaOrsm6ws3hqdHBrXeFp7Y1e2crt8Mh5U-hQh9tTdGR1FczZz-yjt9H9azqOJs8Pj-lwEmkOlEaDZD4XBUhmgeS20PM2LXgRM51TgIIJAjnnIBjLc0EsyAGJYxYTTbWNGUtYH112vQtdqQ9frrRvlNOlGg8nap8BTwRIQraktRed_fDuc2NCrZZu49sTgqKcxrGUgvNWXXWq8C4Eb-xvLQG1_7D6--GWs47vyso0_1o1y9KM8oRR9gWttnpJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2425599744</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Archive</source><source>EZB Electronic Journals Library</source><creator>Pechlivanidis, I. G. ; Crochemore, L. ; Rosberg, J. ; Bosshard, T.</creator><creatorcontrib>Pechlivanidis, I. G. ; Crochemore, L. ; Rosberg, J. ; Bosshard, T.</creatorcontrib><description>Recent technological advances in representation of processes in numerical climate models have led to skillful predictions, which can consequently increase the confidence of hydrological predictions and usability of hydroclimatic services. Given that many water‐related stakeholders are affected by seasonal hydrological variations, there is a need to manage such variations to their advantage through better understanding of the drivers that influence hydrological predictability. Here we analyze the seasonal forecasts of streamflow volumes across about 35,400 basins in Europe, which lie along a strong gradient in terms of climatology, scale, and hydrological regime. We then link the seasonal volumetric errors to various physiographic‐hydroclimatic descriptors and meteorological biases in order to identify the key drivers controlling predictability. Streamflow volumes over Europe are well predicted, yet with some geographic and seasonal variability; however, the predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. Nevertheless, we show that the forecast quality is well correlated to a set of descriptors, which vary depending on the initialization month. The forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volumes is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, with limited predictability in relatively flashy basins. On the contrary, snow and/or baseflow dominated regions with long recessions show high streamflow predictability. Finally, climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to streamflow predictability, highlighting the importance of developing robust bias adjustment methods. Overall, this investigation shows that the seasonal streamflow predictability can be clustered, and hence regionalized, based on a priori knowledge of local hydroclimatic conditions. Plain Language Summary Hydrological information for the months ahead is of great value to existing decision‐making practices, particularly to those affected by the vagaries of the climate and who would benefit from better understanding and managing climate‐related risks. Currently, there is limited knowledge of the factors controlling the quality of the seasonal streamflow forecasts. We analyze such forecasts over Europe and link their predictability to basin descriptors and meteorological biases. This allows the identification of the key drivers along a strong hydroclimatic gradient. The seasonal streamflow predictability varies geographically and seasonally with acceptable values for the first lead months. Predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. The hydrological regime is strongly linked to the forecast quality, with quickly reacting basins showing low values. Basin climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to the predictability of streamflow. Key Points Forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volume varies geographically and seasonally, while streamflow predictability can be regionalized Streamflow predictability is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, climatology, and precipitation forecast biases Predictability is higher in river systems of long streamflow memory than in systems immediately responding to the precipitation signal</description><identifier>ISSN: 0043-1397</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1944-7973</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1029/2019WR026987</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington: John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Base flow ; Basins ; Climate ; Climate models ; Climate science ; Climatology ; Confidence ; continental models ; Decision making ; Earth Sciences ; Environmental management ; hydroclimate services ; Hydrologic regime ; hydrologic similarities ; Hydrology ; Lead time ; Mathematical analysis ; pan‐European scale ; performance attribution ; Precipitation ; Quality ; Quality control ; Robustness (mathematics) ; Sciences of the Universe ; Seasonal forecasting ; Seasonal variability ; Seasonal variation ; Seasonal variations ; Stream discharge ; Stream flow ; Streamflow forecasting ; Weather forecasting ; Winter</subject><ispartof>Water resources research, 2020-06, Vol.56 (6), p.n/a</ispartof><rights>2020. The Authors.</rights><rights>2020. This article is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Attribution</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-86dd7c093f01bfcad402c4c53ab200c3710b440733bb71f098155351a2af53363</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-86dd7c093f01bfcad402c4c53ab200c3710b440733bb71f098155351a2af53363</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-5776-6275 ; 0000-0002-3416-317X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029%2F2019WR026987$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029%2F2019WR026987$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,11514,27924,27925,45574,45575,46468,46892</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-04670911$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crochemore, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosberg, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosshard, T.</creatorcontrib><title>What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?</title><title>Water resources research</title><description>Recent technological advances in representation of processes in numerical climate models have led to skillful predictions, which can consequently increase the confidence of hydrological predictions and usability of hydroclimatic services. Given that many water‐related stakeholders are affected by seasonal hydrological variations, there is a need to manage such variations to their advantage through better understanding of the drivers that influence hydrological predictability. Here we analyze the seasonal forecasts of streamflow volumes across about 35,400 basins in Europe, which lie along a strong gradient in terms of climatology, scale, and hydrological regime. We then link the seasonal volumetric errors to various physiographic‐hydroclimatic descriptors and meteorological biases in order to identify the key drivers controlling predictability. Streamflow volumes over Europe are well predicted, yet with some geographic and seasonal variability; however, the predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. Nevertheless, we show that the forecast quality is well correlated to a set of descriptors, which vary depending on the initialization month. The forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volumes is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, with limited predictability in relatively flashy basins. On the contrary, snow and/or baseflow dominated regions with long recessions show high streamflow predictability. Finally, climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to streamflow predictability, highlighting the importance of developing robust bias adjustment methods. Overall, this investigation shows that the seasonal streamflow predictability can be clustered, and hence regionalized, based on a priori knowledge of local hydroclimatic conditions. Plain Language Summary Hydrological information for the months ahead is of great value to existing decision‐making practices, particularly to those affected by the vagaries of the climate and who would benefit from better understanding and managing climate‐related risks. Currently, there is limited knowledge of the factors controlling the quality of the seasonal streamflow forecasts. We analyze such forecasts over Europe and link their predictability to basin descriptors and meteorological biases. This allows the identification of the key drivers along a strong hydroclimatic gradient. The seasonal streamflow predictability varies geographically and seasonally with acceptable values for the first lead months. Predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. The hydrological regime is strongly linked to the forecast quality, with quickly reacting basins showing low values. Basin climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to the predictability of streamflow. Key Points Forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volume varies geographically and seasonally, while streamflow predictability can be regionalized Streamflow predictability is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, climatology, and precipitation forecast biases Predictability is higher in river systems of long streamflow memory than in systems immediately responding to the precipitation signal</description><subject>Base flow</subject><subject>Basins</subject><subject>Climate</subject><subject>Climate models</subject><subject>Climate science</subject><subject>Climatology</subject><subject>Confidence</subject><subject>continental models</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Environmental management</subject><subject>hydroclimate services</subject><subject>Hydrologic regime</subject><subject>hydrologic similarities</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Lead time</subject><subject>Mathematical analysis</subject><subject>pan‐European scale</subject><subject>performance attribution</subject><subject>Precipitation</subject><subject>Quality</subject><subject>Quality control</subject><subject>Robustness (mathematics)</subject><subject>Sciences of the Universe</subject><subject>Seasonal forecasting</subject><subject>Seasonal variability</subject><subject>Seasonal variation</subject><subject>Seasonal variations</subject><subject>Stream discharge</subject><subject>Stream flow</subject><subject>Streamflow forecasting</subject><subject>Weather forecasting</subject><subject>Winter</subject><issn>0043-1397</issn><issn>1944-7973</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>24P</sourceid><sourceid>WIN</sourceid><recordid>eNp90F1LwzAUBuAgCs7pnT8g4JVg9eSjzXIlozonDsRO2WVIu8R1dIsm3Ub_vZ0V8cqrA-95eOEchM4JXBOg8oYCkbMMaCIH4gD1iOQ8ElKwQ9QD4CwiTIpjdBLCEoDwOBE9lM0WusZDb3C9MPjJNPjOl1vjA07duvauqsr1-_fuZaOrsm6ws3hqdHBrXeFp7Y1e2crt8Mh5U-hQh9tTdGR1FczZz-yjt9H9azqOJs8Pj-lwEmkOlEaDZD4XBUhmgeS20PM2LXgRM51TgIIJAjnnIBjLc0EsyAGJYxYTTbWNGUtYH112vQtdqQ9frrRvlNOlGg8nap8BTwRIQraktRed_fDuc2NCrZZu49sTgqKcxrGUgvNWXXWq8C4Eb-xvLQG1_7D6--GWs47vyso0_1o1y9KM8oRR9gWttnpJ</recordid><startdate>202006</startdate><enddate>202006</enddate><creator>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</creator><creator>Crochemore, L.</creator><creator>Rosberg, J.</creator><creator>Bosshard, T.</creator><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>American Geophysical Union</general><scope>24P</scope><scope>WIN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T7</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>1XC</scope><scope>VOOES</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5776-6275</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3416-317X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202006</creationdate><title>What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?</title><author>Pechlivanidis, I. G. ; Crochemore, L. ; Rosberg, J. ; Bosshard, T.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a4022-86dd7c093f01bfcad402c4c53ab200c3710b440733bb71f098155351a2af53363</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Base flow</topic><topic>Basins</topic><topic>Climate</topic><topic>Climate models</topic><topic>Climate science</topic><topic>Climatology</topic><topic>Confidence</topic><topic>continental models</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Environmental management</topic><topic>hydroclimate services</topic><topic>Hydrologic regime</topic><topic>hydrologic similarities</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Lead time</topic><topic>Mathematical analysis</topic><topic>pan‐European scale</topic><topic>performance attribution</topic><topic>Precipitation</topic><topic>Quality</topic><topic>Quality control</topic><topic>Robustness (mathematics)</topic><topic>Sciences of the Universe</topic><topic>Seasonal forecasting</topic><topic>Seasonal variability</topic><topic>Seasonal variation</topic><topic>Seasonal variations</topic><topic>Stream discharge</topic><topic>Stream flow</topic><topic>Streamflow forecasting</topic><topic>Weather forecasting</topic><topic>Winter</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Crochemore, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosberg, J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bosshard, T.</creatorcontrib><collection>Wiley Online Library Open Access</collection><collection>Wiley Free Archive</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Industrial and Applied Microbiology Abstracts (Microbiology A)</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy &amp; Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>Meteorological &amp; Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science &amp; Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL) (Open Access)</collection><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Pechlivanidis, I. G.</au><au>Crochemore, L.</au><au>Rosberg, J.</au><au>Bosshard, T.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?</atitle><jtitle>Water resources research</jtitle><date>2020-06</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>6</issue><epage>n/a</epage><issn>0043-1397</issn><eissn>1944-7973</eissn><abstract>Recent technological advances in representation of processes in numerical climate models have led to skillful predictions, which can consequently increase the confidence of hydrological predictions and usability of hydroclimatic services. Given that many water‐related stakeholders are affected by seasonal hydrological variations, there is a need to manage such variations to their advantage through better understanding of the drivers that influence hydrological predictability. Here we analyze the seasonal forecasts of streamflow volumes across about 35,400 basins in Europe, which lie along a strong gradient in terms of climatology, scale, and hydrological regime. We then link the seasonal volumetric errors to various physiographic‐hydroclimatic descriptors and meteorological biases in order to identify the key drivers controlling predictability. Streamflow volumes over Europe are well predicted, yet with some geographic and seasonal variability; however, the predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. Nevertheless, we show that the forecast quality is well correlated to a set of descriptors, which vary depending on the initialization month. The forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volumes is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, with limited predictability in relatively flashy basins. On the contrary, snow and/or baseflow dominated regions with long recessions show high streamflow predictability. Finally, climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to streamflow predictability, highlighting the importance of developing robust bias adjustment methods. Overall, this investigation shows that the seasonal streamflow predictability can be clustered, and hence regionalized, based on a priori knowledge of local hydroclimatic conditions. Plain Language Summary Hydrological information for the months ahead is of great value to existing decision‐making practices, particularly to those affected by the vagaries of the climate and who would benefit from better understanding and managing climate‐related risks. Currently, there is limited knowledge of the factors controlling the quality of the seasonal streamflow forecasts. We analyze such forecasts over Europe and link their predictability to basin descriptors and meteorological biases. This allows the identification of the key drivers along a strong hydroclimatic gradient. The seasonal streamflow predictability varies geographically and seasonally with acceptable values for the first lead months. Predictability deteriorates with increasing lead time particularly in the winter months. The hydrological regime is strongly linked to the forecast quality, with quickly reacting basins showing low values. Basin climatology and precipitation forecast biases are also related to the predictability of streamflow. Key Points Forecast quality of seasonal streamflow volume varies geographically and seasonally, while streamflow predictability can be regionalized Streamflow predictability is strongly dependent on the basin's hydrological regime, climatology, and precipitation forecast biases Predictability is higher in river systems of long streamflow memory than in systems immediately responding to the precipitation signal</abstract><cop>Washington</cop><pub>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</pub><doi>10.1029/2019WR026987</doi><tpages>19</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5776-6275</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3416-317X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0043-1397
ispartof Water resources research, 2020-06, Vol.56 (6), p.n/a
issn 0043-1397
1944-7973
language eng
recordid cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_04670911v1
source Wiley-Blackwell Journals; Wiley-Blackwell AGU Digital Archive; EZB Electronic Journals Library
subjects Base flow
Basins
Climate
Climate models
Climate science
Climatology
Confidence
continental models
Decision making
Earth Sciences
Environmental management
hydroclimate services
Hydrologic regime
hydrologic similarities
Hydrology
Lead time
Mathematical analysis
pan‐European scale
performance attribution
Precipitation
Quality
Quality control
Robustness (mathematics)
Sciences of the Universe
Seasonal forecasting
Seasonal variability
Seasonal variation
Seasonal variations
Stream discharge
Stream flow
Streamflow forecasting
Weather forecasting
Winter
title What Are the Key Drivers Controlling the Quality of Seasonal Streamflow Forecasts?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T19%3A19%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=What%20Are%20the%20Key%20Drivers%20Controlling%20the%20Quality%20of%20Seasonal%20Streamflow%20Forecasts?&rft.jtitle=Water%20resources%20research&rft.au=Pechlivanidis,%20I.%20G.&rft.date=2020-06&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=6&rft.epage=n/a&rft.issn=0043-1397&rft.eissn=1944-7973&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029/2019WR026987&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_hal_p%3E2425599744%3C/proquest_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2425599744&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true