ArticleHeliyon2018
Comparing causal techniques for rainfall variability analysis using causality algorithms in Iran.
Article in Heliyon, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Causal analysis (CA) is a strong quantitative approach whose mechanisms have climatic predictions. In this study, we studied the patterns of causality (PC) on the effect of rainfall (ER) using climatic series collected from 170 stations for the period 1975-2014 in Iran. Next, we predicted the causal relationships of climatic variables using causal models, including first-generation techniques (FGT), second-generation techniques (SGT), third-generation techniques (TGT), and causal hybrid techniques (CHT). Then, we estimated the causal models using partial squares algorithms (PSA), mechanical equations modeling algorithms (MEMA) such as exploratory and confirmatory methods, and spatial variability methods such as geostatistics and spatial statistical methods. Finally, we evaluated the quality of the methods using the goodness of fit indices, including absolute fit indices (AFI), comparative fit indices (CFI), and parsimonious fit indices (PFI). The results showed that CHT algorithm more suitably predicted the climatic spatiotemporal effect variability (SEV) by extracting direct, indirect, and total effects of climatic variables. Based on the CHT algorithm, the highest and lowest effect values were observed in total effects of winter rainfall (0.98) and summer rainfall variables (0.1), respectively. The SEV ranged from 0.8 to 0.98 for the winter rainfall total effects of CHT in Iran. Using CHT, most of the predicted SEV, particularly the rainfall series, displayed SEV varying from 80% to 98% of the winter rainfall total effects to the annual rainfall in Iran. Similarly, based on the CHT, the highest and lowest SEV values were in western, eastern, and southern regions and in central regions, respectively. In addition, the SEV varied within the range of 0.6-0.74 (varying from 60% to 74% for the autumn rainfall total effects of the annual rainfall in Iran) for the autumn rainfall total effects in Iran. Finally, the SEV of this type of analytical pattern as well as designated subject of CA applications in the atmospheric science and environmental science are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.