ArticleEnvironmental science and pollution research international2020
Letter to the editor "comparing artificial intelligence techniques for chlorophyll-a prediction in US lakes".
Article in Environmental science and pollution research international, 2020. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Letter to the Editor "Estimation of global solar radiation data based on satellite-derived atmospheric parameters over the urban area of Mashhad, Iran".Environmental science and pollution research international · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The discussers wish to thank the authors of the original paper for investigating the comparing accuracy of artificial intelligence techniques trained to predict chlorophyll-a in US lakes. In the original paper (Luo et al., Environ Sci Pollut Res 26: 30524-30532, 2019), four data-driven models were established to estimate the chlorophyll-a (CHLA) values in natural and man-made lakes. Three of these models are adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS)-based, while one is (artificial neural network) ANN-based. The authors used total phosphorus (TP), total nitrogen (TN), turbidity (TB), and the Secchi depth (SD) as independent variables in order to predict CHLA. They stated that ANFIS with subtractive clustering method (ANFIS_SC) models and multilayer perceptron neural network (MLPNN) models gives higher accuracy in the prediction of CHLA values for natural lakes and man-made lakes, respectively. In this letter, some of the missing points in the original publication, which is important for the estimation and comparison of CHLA values in two different lake sets that differ according to the type of formation, are highlighted. In addition, several points are mentioned in order to make these points more clarified for potential readers.
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.