ArticleScientific reports2020
Mapping wind erosion hazard with regression-based machine learning algorithms.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Mapping of the EORTC QLQ-LC43 to EQ-5D-5 L index in patients with lung cancer: comparison of traditional regression models with machine learning technique.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2026Article
- Application of smart technologies for predicting soil erosion patterns.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Mapping the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13 to the SF-6D utility index in patients with lung cancer using machine learning and traditional regression methods.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2025Article
- Challenges in data-driven geospatial modeling for environmental research and practice.Nature communications · 2024Review
- Hybrid system model for wind abrasion segmentation using semi-automatic classification of remote sensing multispectral areas.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Spatial modelling of soil salinity: deep or shallow learning models?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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Land susceptibility to wind erosion hazard in Isfahan province, Iran, was mapped by testing 16 advanced regression-based machine learning methods: Robust linear regression (RLR), Cforest, Non-convex penalized quantile regression (NCPQR), Neural network with feature extraction (NNFE), Monotone multi-layer perception neural network (MMLPNN), Ridge regression (RR), Boosting generalized linear model (BGLM), Negative binomial generalized linear model (NBGLM), Boosting generalized additive model (BGAM), Spline generalized additive model (SGAM), Spike and slab regression (SSR), Stochastic gradient boosting (SGB), support vector machine (SVM), Relevance vector machine (RVM) and the Cubist and Adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system (ANFIS). Thirteen factors controlling wind erosion were mapped, and multicollinearity among these factors was quantified using the tolerance coefficient (TC) and variance inflation factor (VIF). Model performance was assessed by RMSE, MAE, MBE, and a Taylor diagram using both training and validation datasets. The result showed that five models (MMLPNN, SGAM, Cforest, BGAM and SGB) are capable of delivering a high prediction accuracy for land susceptibility to wind erosion hazard. DEM, precipitation, and vegetation (NDVI) are the most critical factors controlling wind erosion in the study area. Overall, regression-based machine learning models are efficient techniques for mapping land susceptibility to wind erosion hazards.
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.