ArticleEnvironmental monitoring and assessment2020
Comparative evaluation of machine learning models for groundwater quality assessment.
Article in Environmental monitoring and assessment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 138 citations in OpenAlex.
- Predicting PFAS Exposure Risks from Rural Private Wells Using Integrated Mechanistic and Machine-Learned Bayesian Network Models.Environmental science & technology · 2026Article
- Machine learning-based monitoring and design of managed aquifer rechargers for sustainable groundwater management: scope and challenges.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2025Review
- A predictive framework using advanced machine learning approaches for measuring and analyzing the impact of synthetic agrochemicals on human health.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Value and limitations of machine learning in high-frequency nutrient data for gap-filling, forecasting, and transport process interpretation.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 2023Article
- The Utility of Machine Learning Models for Predicting Chemical Contaminants in Drinking Water: Promise, Challenges, and Opportunities.Current environmental health reports · 2023Review
- An application of statistical and data mining methods to study the waste charging scheme in Hong Kong.Environmental monitoring and assessment · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Contamination from pesticides and nitrate in groundwater is a significant threat to water quality in general and agriculturally intensive regions in particular. Three widely used machine learning models, namely, artificial neural networks (ANN), support vector machines (SVM), and extreme gradient boosting (XGB), were evaluated for their efficacy in predicting contamination levels using sparse data with non-linear relationships. The predictive ability of the models was assessed using a dataset consisting of 303 wells across 12 Midwestern states in the USA. Multiple hydrogeologic, water quality, and land use features were chosen as the independent variables, and classes were based on measured concentration ranges of nitrate and pesticide. This study evaluates the classification performance of the models for two, three, and four class scenarios and compares them with the corresponding regression models. The study also examines the issue of class imbalance and tests the efficacy of three class imbalance mitigation techniques: oversampling, weighting, and oversampling and weighting, for all the scenarios. The models' performance is reported using multiple metrics, both insensitive to class imbalance (accuracy) and sensitive to class imbalance (F1 score and MCC). Finally, the study assesses the importance of features using game-theoretic Shapley values to rank features consistently and offer model interpretability.
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.