Abstract
Effective earthquake disaster management requires the most recent and precise vulnerability evaluation. There are a total of 24 faults and 16 fault segments that may affect Kayseri city center and its districts. According to the records, in the historical and instrumental period, more than 30 earthquakes that occurred with a magnitude of 4 and above are concentrated in 8 districts. Ten of these earthquakes occurred in the last 7 years. A framework for evaluating Kayseri’s earthquake vulnerability has been presented using a three-stage process: Determining the criteria through a literature review and consultations with experts, applying the linear Best Worst Method (BWM) to weigh the selected criteria, and evaluating the districts using alternative by alternative comparison (ABAC), respectively. To analyze the earthquake vulnerability of districts, the proposed methodology BWM-ABAC, which is used for the first time in the literature, offers valuable results. The findings showed that the Kocasinan district is the most vulnerable to earthquakes in Kayseri City. A sensitivity analysis was then performed to confirm the robustness.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Comerio M C 2004 Public policy for reducing earthquake risks: a US perspective. Build. Res. Inf. 32(5): 403–413.
Gurbuz C, Aktar M, Eyidogan H, Cisternas A, Haessler H, Barka A and Yoruk A 2000 The seismotectonics of the Marmara region (Turkey): results from a microseismic experiment. Tectonophysics 316(1–2): 1–17
Şahin Ş 2019 Türkiye’de afet yönetimi ve 2023 hedefleri. Türk Deprem Araştırma Dergisi 1(2): 180–196
Erdogan S 2021 İstanbul Tarihi Yarimada’da Kentsel Ölçekte Deprem Odakli Kentsel Zarar Görebilirlik Değerlendirmesi. (İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Master's thesis Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü)
Dwyer A, Zoppou C, Nielsen O, Day S and Roberts S 2004 Quantifying social vulnerability: a methodology for identifying those at risk to natural hazards
Yücel G 2018 Earthquake and evacuation area assessment for Istanbul Avcılar district. Disaster Sci. Eng. 4(2): 65–79
Balyemez S and Berköz L 2010 Hasar görebilirlik ve kentsel deprem davranışı. İTÜDERGİSİ/a 4(1)
Kundak S 2006 İstanbul'da deprem risk parametrelerinin değerlendirilmesine yönelik bir model önerisi. (Doktora tezi). İstanbul Teknik Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü İstanbul
Rashed T and Weeks J 2003 Assessing vulnerability to earthquake hazards through spatial multicriteria analysis of urban areas. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 17(6): 547–576
Diaz-Sarachaga J M and Jato-Espino D 2020 Analysis of vulnerability assessment frameworks and methodologies in urban areas. Natl. Hazards 100(1): 437–457
Wiguna K A, Sarno R and Ariyani N F 2016 Optimization solar farm site selection using multi-criteria decision making fuzzy AHP and PROMETHEE: case study in Bali. In: 2016 International Conference on Information & Communication Technology and Systems (ICTS) (pp. 237-243). IEEE
Deng Y, Chan F T, Wu Y and Wang D 2011 A new linguistic MCDM method based on multiple-criterion data fusion. Exp. Syst. Appl. 38(6): 6985–6993
Shayannejad A and Angerabı B A 2014 Earthquake Vulnerability Assessment in urban areas using MCDM Case study: the central part of 6 district of Tehran Municipality. Int. Rev. Spat. Plann. Sustain. Dev. 2(2): 39–51
Peng Y 2015 Regional earthquake vulnerability assessment using a combination of MCDM methods. Ann. Oper. Res. 234: 95–110
Alizadeh M, Ngah I, Hashim M, Pradhan B and Pour A B 2018 A hybrid analytic network process and artificial neural network (ANP-ANN) model for urban earthquake vulnerability assessment. Remote Sens. 10(6): 975
Nyimbili P H, Erden T and Karaman H 2018 Integration of GIS AHP and TOPSIS for earthquake hazard analysis. Natl. Hazards 92: 1523–1546
Yavuz Kumlu K B and Tüdeş Ş 2019 Determination of earthquake-risky areas in Yalova City Center (Marmara region Turkey) using GIS-based multicriteria decision-making techniques (analytical hierarchy process and technique for order preference by similarity to ideal solution). Natl. Hazards 96: 999–1018
Chen N, Chen L, Tang C, Wu Z and Chen A 2019 Disaster risk evaluation using factor analysis: a case study of Chinese regions. Natl. Hazards 99: 321–335
Yariyan P, Zabihi H, Wolf I D, Karami M and Amiriyan S 2020 Earthquake risk assessment using an integrated fuzzy analytic hierarchy process with artificial neural networks based on GIS: a case study of Sanandaj in Iran. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 50: 101705
Jena R, Pradhan B, Beydoun G, Sofyan H and Affan M 2020 Integrated model for earthquake risk assessment using neural network and analytic hierarchy process: Aceh province Indonesia. Geosci. Front. 11(2): 613–634
Jena R, Pradhan B and Beydoun G 2020 Earthquake vulnerability assessment in Northern Sumatra province by using a multi-criteria decision-making model. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 46: 101518
Güler E, Selen A and Aladağ Z 2021 Türkiye’de İllerin Deprem Hasar Görebilirlik Sıralamasında Promethee Vıkor Topsıs Yöntemlerinin Başarılarının Değerlendirilmesi. Endüstri Mühendisliği 32(3): 414–437
Jena R, Pradhan B, Beydoun G, Alamri A and Shanableh A 2021 Spatial earthquake vulnerability assessment by using multi-criteria decision making and probabilistic neural network techniques in Odisha India. Geocarto Int. 1-20
Shafapourtehrany M, Yariyan P, Özener H, Pradhan B and Shabani F 2022 Evaluating the application of K-mean clustering in Earthquake vulnerability mapping of Istanbul Turkey. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 79: 103154
Biswas A, Baranwal G and Tripathi A K 2022 ABAC: alternative by alternative comparison based multi-criteria decision making method. Expert Syst. Appl. 208: 118174
Rezaei J 2015 Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method. Omega 53: 49–57
Roy P K and Shaw K 2021 An integrated fuzzy model for evaluation and selection of mobile banking (m-banking) applications using new fuzzy-BWM and fuzzy-TOPSIS. Complex Intell. Syst. 1–22
Özmen M and Aydoğan E K 2020 Robust multi-criteria decision making methodology for real life logistics center location problem. Artif. Intell. Rev. 53: 725–751
Aboutorab H, Saberi M, Asadabadi M R, Hussain O and Chang E 2018 ZBWM: The Z-number extension of best worst method and its application for supplier development. Exp. Syst. Appl. 107: 115–125
Rezaei J, van Roekel W S and Tavasszy L 2018 Measuring the relative importance of the logistics performance index indicators using Best Worst Method. Transp. Policy 68: 158–169
Pamucar D, Chatterjee K and Zavadskas E K 2019 Assessment of third-party logistics provider using multi-criteria decision-making approach based on interval rough numbers. Comput. Ind. Eng. 127: 383–407
Qu S, Xu Y, Wu Z, Xu Z, Ji Y, Qu D and Han Y 2021 An interval-valued best–worst method with normal distribution for multi-criteria decision-making. Arab J. Sci. Eng. 46: 1771–1785
Gul M and Ak M F 2020 Assessment of occupational risks from human health and environmental perspectives: a new integrated approach and its application using fuzzy BWM and fuzzy MAIRCA. Stochast. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 34(8): 1231–1262
Sotoudeh-Anvari A, Sadjadi S, Molana S and Sadi-Nezhad S 2018 A new MCDM-based approach using BWM and SAW for optimal search model. Decision Sci. Lett. 7(4): 395–404
Triantaphyllou E and Sánchez A 1997 A sensitivity analysis approach for some deterministic multi-criteria decision-making methods. Decision Sci. 28(1): 151–194
Li P, Qian H, Wu J and Chen J 2013 Sensitivity analysis of TOPSIS method in water quality assessment: I. Sensitivity to the parameter weights. Environ. Monit. Assess. 185: 2453–2461
Mi X, Tang M, Liao H, Shen W and Lev B 2019 The state-of-the-art survey on integrations and applications of the best worst method in decision making: Why, what what for and what’s next? Omega 87: 205–225
Rezaei J 2016 Best-worst multi-criteria decision-making method: Some properties and a linear model. Omega 64: 126–130
Bozkurt E 2001 Neotectonics of Turkey–a synthesis. Geodinamica Acta 14(1–3): 3–30
Kayseri İl Afet Risk Azaltma Planı https://kayseri.afad.gov.tr/kurumlar/kayseri.afad/Egitim/Kayseri_IRAP_Baski.pdf
https://www.usgs.gov/programs/earthquake-hazards/determining-depth-earthquake
Kılıç N C A 2021 An evaluation on the earthquake hazard Of Kayseri Provınce and Its vicinity. ULUSLARARASI ERCİYES BİLİMSEL ARAŞTIRMALAR KONGRESİ, 297-309
Moustafa A and Takewaki I 2012 Characterization of earthquake ground motion of multiple sequences. Earthq. Struct. 3(5): 629–647
Davidson R A and Shah H C 1997 An urban earthquake disaster risk index. Report 121. Blume Earthquake Engineering Center, Standford, USA
Bruneau M, Chang S E, Eguchi R T, Lee G C, O’Rourke T D, Reinhorn A M and Von Winterfeldt D 2003 A framework to quantitatively assess and enhance the seismic resilience of communities. Earthq. Spectra 19(4): 733–752
Birkmann J 2007 Risk and vulnerability indicators at different scales: Applicability, usefulness and policy implications. Environ. Hazards 7(1): 20–31
De Ruiter M C, Ward P J, Daniell J E and Aerts J C 2017 A comparison of flood and earthquake vulnerability assessment indicators. Natl. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci. 17(7): 1231–1251
Triantaphyllou E and Triantaphyllou E 2000 Multi-criteria decision making methods. Springer, Berlin, pp 5–21
Liu K 2020 Post-earthquake medical evacuation system design based on hierarchical multi-objective optimization model: An earthquake case study. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct. 51: 101785
Crowley H, Despotaki V, Rodrigues D, Silva V, Toma-Danila D, Riga E and Gamba P 2020 Exposure model for European seismic risk assessment. Earthq. Spectra 36(1_suppl): 252–273
Bahadori H, Hasheminezhad A and Karimi A 2017 Development of an integrated model for seismic vulnerability assessment of residential buildings: Application to Mahabad City Iran. J. Build. Eng. 12: 118–131
Yavaşoğlu F and Özden Ç V 2017 Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Tabanlı Analitik Hiyerarşi Süreci Kullanılarak Deprem Hasar Riski Analizi: Kadıköy Örneği. TÜBAV Bilim Dergisi 10(3): 28–38
Sinha N, Priyanka N and Joshi P K 2016 Using spatial multi-criteria analysis and ranking tool (SMART) in earthquake risk assessment: A case study of Delhi region India. Geomat. Natl. Hazards Risk 7(2): 680–701
Ardalan A, Masoomi GR, Goya MM, et al 2009 Disaster health management: Iran's progress and challenges. Iran J Public Health 38: 93–97
Cook A D and Dorussen H 2021 Civil protection and disaster management. In: The European Union’s Security Relations with Asian Partners Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 185–207
Ecer F 2021 Sustainability assessment of existing onshore wind plants in the context of triple bottom line: a best-worst method (BWM) based MCDM framework. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 28(16): 19677–19693
Kamranzad F, Memarian H and Zare M 2020 Earthquake risk assessment for Tehran Iran. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 9(7): 430
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye for supporting this research work under Project No: 121E406.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The author declares that there are no conflict of interests.
Appendices
Appendix A, B, C: Decision matrix of criteria A, B, and C.
A | B | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
A1 | A2 | A3 | A4 | A5 | A6 | B1 | B2 | ||||||||||
A11 | A12 | A13 | A14 | B11 | B12 | B13 | B21 | B22 | B23 | B24 | B25 | ||||||
BÜNYAN | 2953 | 50000 | 12812 | 362044 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 9643 | 2377 | 0 | 5923 | 5057 | 4016 | 4689 | 346 |
DEVELİ | 7198 | 160705 | 117421 | 422886 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 18991 | 1832 | 607 | 3815 | 7726 | 6037 | 2001 | 5090 |
FELAHİYE | 4458 | 27262 | 131 | 114419 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 16467 | 9172 | 0 | 6346 | 1763 | 5403 | 1714 | 0 |
HACILAR | 1758 | 12366 | 643 | 12868 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 18657 | 1077 | 0 | 3528 | 507 | 3124 | 53 | 1816 |
İNCESU | 34295 | 103000 | 7675 | 174938 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 14736 | 6085 | 0 | 9044 | 6646 | 5034 | 2373 | 1912 |
KOCASİNAN | 6363 | 438865 | 7956 | 567525 | 10 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 15124 | 8579 | 3352 | 5868 | 2175 | 12865 | 1740 | 818 |
MELİKGAZİ | 4222 | 75758 | 1104 | 77923 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 3 | 5 | 17451 | 13656 | 8825 | 3794 | 1165 | 12519 | 1497 | 707 |
ÖZVATAN | 1238 | 7500 | 166 | 37215 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 18737 | 8360 | 6261 | 3530 | 0 | 5709 | 0 | 785 |
PINARBAŞI | 4173 | 50000 | 2072 | 599771 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 18671 | 0 | 0 | 5248 | 5695 | 4239 | 0 | 2177 |
SARIOĞLAN | 260 | 166400 | 871 | 176962 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 17825 | 773 | 0 | 5986 | 1465 | 4991 | 14 | 162 |
TALAS | 6790 | 39867 | 62565 | 119469 | 1 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 16611 | 12631 | 4743 | 3754 | 2188 | 7680 | 9 | 818 |
TOMARZA | 453 | 56646 | 160712 | 385993 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 12723 | 8370 | 613 | 4894 | 7299 | 4059 | 0 | 1871 |
YAHYALI | 37825 | 36702 | 1486 | 173099 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 22087 | 3958 | 0 | 4448 | 30 | 1723 | 1335 | 994 |
YEŞİLHİSAR | 40532 | 37000 | 21454 | 238757 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 19768 | 3698 | 0 | 6557 | 3050 | 3144 | 5 | 1008 |
C | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
C1 | C2 | C3 | C4 | C5 | C6 | C7 | |
BÜNYAN | 1530 | 3585 | 11873 | 8907 | 2542 | 1561 | 101 |
DEVELİ | 4420 | 10583 | 22836 | 20276 | 5175 | 3005 | 212 |
FELAHİYE | 236 | 482 | 1508 | 1841 | 895 | 546 | 28 |
HACILAR | 743 | 1991 | 4226 | 3939 | 1023 | 515 | 34 |
İNCESU | 2150 | 4836 | 10097 | 8206 | 2059 | 1328 | 79 |
KOCASİNAN | 27557 | 66421 | 152230 | 121491 | 24400 | 11933 | 748 |
MELİKGAZİ | 41763 | 99407 | 227722 | 176925 | 30236 | 13077 | 722 |
ÖZVATAN | 130 | 280 | 935 | 1377 | 611 | 431 | 36 |
PINARBAŞI | 1183 | 2873 | 6814 | 6905 | 2480 | 1537 | 111 |
SARIOĞLAN | 709 | 1601 | 3940 | 4538 | 1785 | 1117 | 87 |
TALAS | 11873 | 26498 | 70935 | 47915 | 8165 | 3240 | 157 |
TOMARZA | 1318 | 3209 | 6746 | 6739 | 2214 | 1330 | 74 |
YAHYALI | 2415 | 5464 | 11860 | 11051 | 2894 | 1840 | 150 |
YEŞİLHİSAR | 933 | 2010 | 4682 | 5119 | 1657 | 1190 | 74 |
Appendix D, E, F, G: Decision matrix of criteria D, E, F, and G.
D | E | F | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
D1 | D2 | D3 | D4 | D5 | D6 | E1 | E2 | E3 | F1 | F2 | F3 | F4 | F5 | |||||||||||
D11 | D12 | D13 | D21 | D22 | D23 | D24 | D41 | D42 | D43 | D51 | D52 | D53 | D54 | |||||||||||
BÜNYAN | 2 | 10 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
DEVELİ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
FELAHİYE | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
HACILAR | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
İNCESU | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
KOCASİNAN | 5 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
MELİKGAZİ | 8 | 5 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 9 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 1 |
ÖZVATAN | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
PINARBAŞI | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
SARIOĞLAN | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
TALAS | 10 | 1 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 5 | 10 | 1 |
TOMARZA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
YAHYALI | 1 | 1 | 10 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
YEŞİLHİSAR | 1 | 1 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
G | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
G1 | G2 | G3 | G4 | G5 | G6 | G7 | |||||||||||||
G11 | G12 | G13 | G31 | G32 | G41 | G42 | G43 | G61 | G62 | G63 | G64 | G65 | G66 | G71 | G72 | G73 | |||
BÜNYAN | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
DEVELİ | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 1 |
FELAHİYE | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
HACILAR | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
İNCESU | 1 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
KOCASİNAN | 3 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | 6 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 4 |
MELİKGAZİ | 10 | 2 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
ÖZVATAN | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
PINARBAŞI | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
SARIOĞLAN | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
TALAS | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
TOMARZA | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
YAHYALI | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
YEŞİLHİSAR | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Özmen, M. Evaluating earthquake vulnerability of 2023 Kayseri, Türkiye via BWM-ABAC method. Sādhanā 48, 179 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-023-02216-x
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-023-02216-x